The problem with "tactical combat"

I wish people would stop asking for tactical combat in this game in posts about what people want for the updates/expansions. It seems like those people just want to play MOO/MOO2 in a GalCiv format. Don't get me wrong I love the MOO games and still play MOO2 to this day When I first bought this game I thought to myself "Its good, but it doesn't have tactical combat" and I wanted it to have tactical combat. But after playing it I realized that its current combat system is a much better fit, not to mention more elegant.

If you really think about it, its hard to describe MOO combat as tactical. Someone else posted somewhere that most (if not all) of the combat was resolved in the same way as if the computer was resolving it, I move and fire weapons, they move and fire weapons.

Compare this to a real tactical game (XCOM: UFO defense, Jagged Alliance, etc.) and you'll see that a so called tactical combat system would pale in comparison and just be a clunky annoyance in this situation.

I hope this isn't an inflamatory posting, I'm not trying to critisize any particular game or gamers prefrence, I'm just hoping that people will realize the strength of the combat system implemented in THIS game, a strategical combat system, one in which you can tank advantage of your oppenents specialization in a particular weapons / defense field and use it against them (not to mention engines, sensors, and hull sizes) should be more than enough to make up for a comparativly shallow tactical system.

Ernst

16,064 views 35 replies
Reply #1 Top
Oopse, would someone move this to game talk, I tried to repost it there, but foolishly double posted.
Reply #2 Top
The one thing going for MOO's combat that you can't do here is special stuff like boarding. You could wipe out large fleets and capture technology by the boat load if you were ready for it. Other than that this resolution system is more loyal to the idea that we play as an Arch(FiendAngelAdmin) running a sizeable empire: we might be able to micromanage most things but in space we still have to let the captains run their own ships.
Reply #3 Top
Sounds more like a mini-game than anything else. Personally, I'd prefer it as an entirely separate game. That way the devs could devote themselves to incorporating all the depth they want without having to worry about it entirely imbalancing the rest of the game. A standard RTS-style would be kinda boring, though. What I'd prefer is something like the Myth series: purely tactical, without resource collection or base-building, and with a heavily story-driven campaign.
Reply #4 Top
That's called Homeworld, Ostsol.
Reply #5 Top
Nah, Homeworld had resource collection and base building (the latter being only to a limited extent). Myth is my ideal. You have a set of units, perhaps with some customisation (which the multiplayer component had), and you accomplish the mission objective with those. Any reinforcements you get are part of scripted events.
Reply #6 Top
Im getting older and have less free time these days. I did like the tactical combat in moo/moo2 somewhat as it ment i could win fights with inferrior ship generally, but it was more of a pain and waste of time than anything. I like the combat in gc2, its simple and quick, allowing me to get back to the empire management and keep a roll on, its hard finding the time to play as it is without making a game take longer. I also think that the fact im not activly controlling the combat makes me more tolerant of accepting heavy losses, as theres nothing i can do about it.
Reply #7 Top
perhaps the option for boarding as a module and let the ships take care of that possibility
Reply #8 Top
Tactical combat in a game like this, to me, seems similar in ideas to real-time combat in an MMORPG - it sounds like a good idea in theory - but then you begin to realise that player skill starts to count for a lot more than it should, and because of that, the levelling system (or tech-tree in this case) starts to not mean so much, which kinda destroys most of what makes the game what it is - (or is supposed to be)...
Reply #9 Top
I kinda feel sorry for the MOO/MOO2 fans as they clearly want more of the same and MOO3 seems not to have hit the spot. I don't know whether anyone is making a MOO4 but it seems that a significant number of the fans see this game as the backbone to "MOO4" and hence request features they want to turn Gal Civ II into that game, so to speak.

I admit I don't want tactical combat in this game, as I want to deal with the "Bigger Picture Situations" such as my funding of the Drath War against the Yor has allowed the Drengin to rise to the top in Military terms and they are now threatening my borders, how do I deal with that ?

Tactical combat would slow the game down considerably, though you could implement it in a way that users such as myself could switch it off, but I suspect tactical combat needs completely different AI routines to present any form of challenge. Also as another poster said, it does allow you to win battles that on paper you shouldn't really win due to the fact that the AI for tactical combat generally can't compete with HI (Human Intelligence) due to the extra complexity tactical combat brings.

I have to admit never really being into 4X games largely because micromanagement was generally overwhelming. I like Gal Civ II the way it is because it strikes the right balance between Micro-management, Strategy and fun. I look forward to the changes that Stardock will make for the whole Gal Civ II community.

Have a good day.

AR
Reply #10 Top
Nah, Homeworld had resource collection and base building (the latter being only to a limited extent). Myth is my ideal. You have a set of units, perhaps with some customisation (which the multiplayer component had), and you accomplish the mission objective with those. Any reinforcements you get are part of scripted events.


You should check out Nexus - The Jupiter Incident !!!!! Maybe just what you are looking for. No Resource management. Total tactical control.

Cool Game
Silent Phoenix

PS GalCivII is cool just the way it is. Horses for Courses!!
Reply #11 Top
@ Ostsol

see if you can track down a game called 'Nexus: the Jupiter Incident'.
Space combat without resource collection!
It was originally going to be 'Imperium Galactica 3', but got dropped & then picked up by another company.
unfortunately the the 4X component was scrapped, but the ship combat that was left was excellent IMHO.
Damn pretty too!

well worth a look if I understand what you are looking for correctly.
Link

Reply #12 Top
In my mind the best tactical combat I've encountered in a 4X game is the combat in the Total War series. It is also important to note that I don't LIKE the Total War series. Having to constantly switch between detailed, hour-long tactical battles and a grand-strategic game is just too distracting, no matter how good each individual component is.

Plus in real life, no leader would do both.
Reply #13 Top
Oh god no, please. Tactical combat, the way most games have it designed is not tactical at all. Space Empires 4 for example. The player with the faster ship wins unscathed, namely because it's one of the "my turn/your turn" set-ups. All I have to do is end my ship's turn one square out of range of the enemy.

Lords of Magic SE had a great combat engine. It's a turn based game, but combat is real time and the AI deals with it quite nicely imo. Tactics include finding advantage points, defensive sections, ect. BUT, you have no where near the number of ships and fleets you have in this game. Mid-late game (read, any war) combat would take a very long time if you had to tell each ship/fleet what to do and where everytime. Leave it up to the captains.

My favorite turn based tactical only game has to be hands down Civil War Generals (1 and 2). No resource gathering (although moral points are gained/lost in battle and can be spent, it really is a minor part of each turn). And the AI in that game just scares the bejeezus out of me. Very well written imo.

If I want to play that type of game, I have choices. but Gal Civ is not one of those, nor would I want it to be. I play it to build an empire from scratch, not pilot a shuttle craft to ultimate glory.
Reply #14 Top
In my mind the best tactical combat I've encountered in a 4X game is the combat in the Total War series. It is also important to note that I don't LIKE the Total War series. Having to constantly switch between detailed, hour-long tactical battles and a grand-strategic game is just too distracting, no matter how good each individual component is.


I really wouldn't call the Total War series 4X games. Exploration is practically nil, and at the start of the game it's impossible to expand without immediately running into someone else. It's got exploitation and extermination, but so does Starcraft and I don't think anyone would call that a 4X game.

That said, the tactical combat in the Total War series is fantastic. The scale, the depth of tactics, the smooth implementation of real-world factors like fatigue and morale; it all adds up to make the battles feel like the key to winning is actually using sensible real-world tactics. You can play Rome: Total War for a while, look at how the Battle of Cannae turned out, and say "Yeah, double envelopment with infantry plus a cavalry charge to the rear frigging owns, I don't care how good your enemy's heavy infantry is."

Plus in real life, no leader would do both.

I believe we called them "kings" for a while. Even today, leaders occasionally try to micromanage military operations. Carter's ridiculous rescue attempt during the Iran hostage crises being a good example of why it's a bad idea to let a bureaucrat design an operation.
Reply #15 Top

... I play it to build an empire from scratch, not pilot a shuttle craft to ultimate glory.


That is so funny and my feelings exactly.

Nice one Zippyriver



EZ

AR
Reply #16 Top
Even today, leaders occasionally try to micromanage military operations. Carter's ridiculous rescue attempt during the Iran hostage crises being a good example of why it's a bad idea to let a bureaucrat design an operation.


Most readers of this forum are probably too young to remember "Operation Eagle Claw" (gah) and the October Surprise. A more recent example like Rumsfeld's pathetic "strategy" for the Iraq invasion (against the military and intelligence community's advice) might be a more appropriate example.
Reply #17 Top
Oh god no, please. Tactical combat, the way most games have it designed is not tactical at all. Space Empires 4 for example. The player with the faster ship wins unscathed, namely because it's one of the "my turn/your turn" set-ups. All I have to do is end my ship's turn one square out of range of the enemy.


Easily resolved in a number of ways...
1) proportional movement a la "Starfleet Battles"
2) opportunity fire a la most turn-based tactical ground combat board games
3) "realtime" instead of turn-bassed tactical combat (reportly how SEV works)
4) probably etc...
Reply #18 Top
I kinda feel sorry for the MOO/MOO2 fans as they clearly want more of the same and MOO3 seems not to have hit the spot. I don't know whether anyone is making a MOO4 but it seems that a significant number of the fans see this game as the backbone to "MOO4" and hence request features they want to turn Gal Civ II into that game, so to speak.


Not really. I admit to being a MOO fan, but I've been playing space 4X games since the board game era (when "computer" still meant something that filled a room and ate punch cards). MOO was just one of a long series of games which borrowed some things from earlier games while adding/changing some features. MOO (1993), "Reach for the Stars" (1988, the 8-bit original), SSI's "Imperium Galacticum" (1983) and several board games were clearly descended from the first space 4X game - "Stellar Conquest" (1974). The early ones didn't have tactical combat, except in the sense that combat was resolved in rounds (all the ships on each side fire, the dead are removed, repeat next round) and usually you could retreat between rounds (your opponent usually getting a free shot as you depart).

One of MOO's innovations, if you consider only computer games, was "tactical" combat in the sense of moving ships around on a tactical map. MOO2 actually deviated significantly from the "Stellar Conquest" system, basically borrowing a bunch of stuff from Sid Meir's "Civilization". Most of the ideas that MOO2 borrowed from Civ were not improvements over MOO (IMO, but others think so as well). The principle things M002 actually improved were multiple planets per star (not new - "Stellar Conquest" had that) and not using population interchangably with troops (again not new). Those were big enough with me to outweigh the Civ-style colony micromanagement and make MOO2 the champ. MOO3, well, let's not talk about that...

Of course, there are plenty of Space 4X games having no relation to "Stellar Conquest".

Tactical space games have been around since board game days as well - most notably "Starfleet Battles" and "Starfire" (although there were others). In the early days, gaming groups oftem married them up with "Stellar Conquest" to create a space 4X game with detailed tactical combat. Later, the publishers of both "Starfleet Battles" and "Starfire" published their own strategic modules that could be played using their respective tactical games to resolve battles. "Federation and Empire" could be played with or without using "Starfleet Battles", but wasn't really "4X" because there was no exploration. "Starfire" has been through 3 or 4 different strategic systems, each of which being a 4X game using its contemporary edition of "Starfire" as a tactical module. Both games continue in publication, with new expansion products being developed, after about 30 years. What sets these apart from computer 4X games is that they have no intention that the strategic game would be finished in a single gaming session. Each significant battle will take its own gaming session, and conquering the galaxy is a campaign that takes months. I would love a computer 4X game that worked that way. I don't think of it as "bogged down" at all.

Reply #19 Top
I would love to see some elements from starfire in a PC game, that tactical system was really nice I thought, simple, yet detailed enough to provide many different options.

I'm not saying I want to see it in GC though

And though you didn't want to mention MoO3 (though you did )...

I thought the general design was excellent, just they completely failed to handle the details. The way that fleets and reserves worked was really quite nice (even if not realistic MoB centers) as it allowed you to abstract alot of painful ship shuffleing from front to front. Indeed I find the 'open space' of GC1 and 2 to get tedious after a while, the only bonus to it (more over SEIV than MoOs) are the anomolies, but I find them tedious as well and usually just turn them down to where I don't bother with them.

Reply #20 Top
would love to see some elements from starfire in a PC game, that tactical system was really nice I thought, simple, yet detailed enough to provide many different options.


The tactical system in SEIII was obviously based on Starfire, although greatly simplified and played out in a tiny sandbox (the idea of getting "cornered" in a space battle is pretty silly).

I'm not saying I want to see it in GC though


I'm not necessarily saying that either. However, I see a tactical module in a space 4X game as a significant enrichment. It would not be that hard to create a simple one using the existing GC2 ship components.

My point in bringing up Starfire is to illustrate that you can have a space 4X game with a quite detailed tactical module. I'm perfectly fine with a game where it takes an hour to resolve one battle and months to finish the whole game. Given the "case against multiplayer", I think that approach is a natural progression for the GC series.

As to MOO3, I think the original "elephant" was a noble idea, but the final product didn't turn out very well in comparison to the vision.
Reply #21 Top
The biggest problem of adding tactical combat to GalCiv2 type game is the free movement system. There are too many units running around on the strategic map. And since the battle can occur at any point in space, this would result in a lot of tactical battles in a single turn. It is not fun to fight 20 small tactical battles each single turn.

A possible solution is to have a system similar to Age of Wonder, where you would position your force on the strategic map and initiate combat. Once tactical combat is initiated, it would pull in all nearby ships/fleets (within a certain radius) into one gigantic tactical battle. Essentially the tactical battlefield is several “parsecs” wide. The starting position of each unit/fleet corresponds to its position on the strategic map. Throw into the mix neutral parties and allied fleets and you will have interesting possibilities.
Reply #22 Top
The biggest problem of adding tactical combat to GalCiv2 type game is the free movement system.


I heartilly agree.

A possible solution is to have a system similar to Age of Wonder, where you would position your force on the strategic map and initiate combat. Once tactical combat is initiated, it would pull in all nearby ships/fleets (within a certain radius) into one gigantic tactical battle


It could be workable, but the simplest solution, that is scraping the free movement system, would work even better. Of course that would also make it more difficult to deal with anomolies and galactic resources. Though you could include them in systems on planets. Of course I'm describing the set up of MoO3, but it was a good setup, just really poorly executed.

It should be noted though that in AoW you still had to pack your hexes based on the stacking limits and move your groups around in clumps. Also there were some natural chokes from mountains or water or whatnot, you don't have that (to any great extent) in GC.
Reply #23 Top
#22 by ubertaco -
The biggest problem of adding tactical combat to GalCiv2 type game is the free movement system.

I heartilly agree.

...(In GalCiv2)...scraping the Free Movement System, would work even better. Of course that would also make it more difficult to deal with anomolies and galactic resources. Though you could include them in systems on planets. Of course I'm describing the set up of MoO3, but it was a good setup, just really poorly executed.


I agree with you about the FMS & MOO3.
MOO3 was a good idea, they just went about it wrong.
I did really like some aspects of planetary management and fleet management in MOO3, ship designer was okay too; but the combat?! Gah...yes let's not go there.
Point is: just cause another game tried it doesn't mean GalCiv2 can't do it right.

Specifically regarding tactical combat though:
Yes, Tactical combat would hinder this game.
However, the current combat system is SORELY LACKING.

For one: it's a just a playback. At the very least I want the ABILITY TO RETREAT!
now, I can agree with post #6 by lukedukekiwi. The combat system is quick and lets u get back to the empire.
But I can't accept heavy losses. There is NO LOGICAL REASON that I shouldn't be able to tell my forces to try(and i emphisize TRY) to run away once they've done all they can without taking huge loses (ie. hit & run or Intercept & slowdown/harass).

Two: Okay, I can accept the fact that I can micro-manage my planets and crap but not my tactical battles. Yes, I have to let the captains handle their ships and the Admiral handle the fleet, that IS what they are there for... so, where are they andd WHY CAN'T I TELL THEM WHAT TO DO!!?
I NEED to at least be able to issue generalize combat orders! Just before a fleet enters battle, I should be able to tell it how to behave in the coming fightt; Such as(just examples): Aggressive(atk bonuses), Defensive(Def bonuses), Hit & run, uhh... a mode to shield weak/damaged ships... or get them out of range/retreat alltogeather! It should be clear by now what I'm getting at here.
Each side simply plays "shoot the weakest ship" untill one side is dead. that seems broken to me.

Three: speaking of weapons: is it just me or does weapon damage seem to be completely random(after accounting for defenses, and even then)?
There's no range modifications, no targeting adjustments, no ship component damage(just generic ole arcadish HIT POINTS); that means no ships being able to run away whilest others draw the enemy off, no real startagy or tactics. it is simply a game of "My ships have more guns and armor then your ships!" some might say it makes the combat quicker. but without all that(and more), there is no real difference between the weapon techs, which means u only really need to research one weapon tree fully. Because the only difference then is size... and more powerful weapons have an equivilently larger size, Therefore: there's no OBVIOUS reason to waste RPs on another Weapon tech; just drop it all into one weapon, thus making it smaller/better, thus allowing u to offset any defensive penalties from having a predictable weapon.
One would think(if indeed we did), that given the extent and detail of the ship designer, not to mention: LACK OF MULTIPLAYER(oops), more care would have been given to the combat system... especially that of seeing weapons or pylons being blown off.
But i can hardly SEE much of anything... the camera controlls are terrible... its impossible to keep track of the battle by watching it. The only thing i pay attn to anymore is the damage report box. Which means that given the TOTAL lack of Control & Stratagy(not to mention Randomness!) : All the tiome put into developing weapon/damage effects was a waste and could have been sufficed by a TEXT BOX.

Well, I think this is starting to turn into a rant and I belive I've made my main points, so I'll end it there.

-Glytch '96
Reply #24 Top
It could be workable, but the simplest solution, that is scraping the free movement system, would work even better.


I don't necessary disagree with you, but scraping the free movement system would make it a totally different game (i.e. not GalCiv).

It should be noted though that in AoW you still had to pack your hexes based on the stacking limits and move your groups around in clumps.


In AoW, you don't want to leave your units exposed without support from adjacent units. In GalCiv2, you want to position your units to attack first without exposing them to the same. Both games force you to micromanage your unit movements. It makes the games strategic and fun, but it can also become tedious as number of units gets too high.
Reply #25 Top
In regards to point 2) Yes, this is exactly what I would like.

Make the option to have the combat play out in turns. It is free-flowing and continuous until the turn is over, then there is a pause. At the pause you can issue orders to specific ships before the next turn starts. So, if your one ship is nearly detroyed, issue an order to have it flee or evasive maneuvers. It would take a good deal of tweeking, but would be sooo much more enjoyable then the current system of "go and fight." I really liked the combat system in Birth of the Federation. Despite the games other weeknesses.