The races should not all be alike!

I want to add that some of the races are also hugely unbalanced. The Yor, for example, are almost impossible to culturally subvert yet they have no weaknesses. The humans are very weak with few starting techs, low starting logistics and no boni whatsoever. The Drath are the strongest race with a ridiculous number of very powerful traits. Developers, what the *BEEP* were you thinking when designing this? Not thinking much at all, I suspect.

I'm starting to regret having bought this game. I hope the developers will wake up and set these very basic things right. Until then, I think I'll just stick with Civ 4 which is a solid game. Galactic Civilizations II has so much potential but unfortunately a lot of basic stuff is not in order.

Are we even discussing the same game?

While I can't say much for the species art designs or the background story of the galaxy, the races do behave very differently. And they all do get significant bonuses. (for the most part).

You always know when the Torians are around because they probably play the colonization game better than any other AI. While the Drengin aren't the best early-game players out there, if they get off to a pretty decent start, they will start eating people minitarily. The Arceans are a lot like the Minbari: they never start a war, but they will almost always finish one. And so forth.

And each species does get a number of special bonuses. You may not think that the Terran diplomacy bonus is significant, but that's probably because you don't play a diplomatic game. They're all listed when you're selecting which species to play, so you should look at that before you start criticizing people.

I'm starting to regret having bought this game. I hope the developers will wake up and set these very basic things right. Until then, I think I'll just stick with Civ 4 which is a solid game. Galactic Civilizations II has so much potential but unfortunately a lot of basic stuff is not in order

Blub... oh well, what sort of answer is right for a post like this...

hmm... well, I will let the Snathi deal with him.


Btw. compared to Civs IV difference between the leaders, GalCivs difference is something like the grand canyon compared to the gap between two galaxies. GalCiv being the galaxy gap of course.

Since not only each race has it's own AI module, they also have very distinctive bonuses and alignements.

Are you really sure we're playing both the same game? (Btw. talking about useless Terrans. Those humans really annoyed me in my last game, when everyone surrendered to them and they ended up with all the spoils of war I've wanted!)

And each species does get a number of special bonuses. You may not think that the Terran diplomacy bonus is significant, but that's probably because you don't play a diplomatic game. They're all listed when you're selecting which species to play, so you should look at that before you start criticizing people.

Most of those boni are generic. They stem from the 10 points available for free distribution. What I'm talking about is having locked boni that cannot be changed (for example the Drath's 50% defense bonus). That is, unless you mean to tell me there are boni that are hidden from the player (which at any rate would be silly).

Its not just racial bonuses that are different for each race - the AI for each race behaves quite differently for each. I won't go into that as it has been explained before in this very thread. If you see no difference between each race behavior increase the difficulty.

He's possibly a troll, possibly someone from a company contracted to try and make people talk about Civ 4 and dis similar games, they exist everywhere ,and post similar things all the time. And since his post has very little mis-spellings and grammar snafu's, I am betting he's not just an ordinary troll. Ignore him, close the post.

What difficulty are you playing on? Try the game on *Tough* with all nine races and then come back and tell us they are all the same.

Seriously constructive comments are one thing even if they are negative. But broad generalities about things that most of us know are unfounded just makes you look silly to say the least. I haven't played Civ4 because it is the same as Civ3 which was the same as Civ2 which in my mind was the best of the series. At least in GC2 they went with more then pretty graphics on GC1 which is much more then can be said for Civ4.

Beyond that I'm sorry you don't find the game as appealing as the rest of us do. I'm curious and will have to go browse some Civ4 forums to see if there are people on there saying things like *Oh Civ4 blows! You should be playing GC2* and *I can't believe I wasted my money on that bug fest of a game Civ4*. Just cracks me up.

Boni?

He's possibly a troll, possibly someone from a company contracted to try and make people talk about Civ 4 and dis similar games, they exist everywhere ,and post similar things all the time. And since his post has very little mis-spellings and grammar snafu's, I am betting he's not just an ordinary troll. Ignore him, close the post.

No, I'm just an avid gamer who wants games to be perfect. And by the way, thanks for the compliments. I did get A++ in English in high school.

Its not just racial bonuses that are different for each race - the AI for each race behaves quite differently for each.

It is not enough that the AI is different because the human player as we all know does not have any AI thus creating an inbalance. There must be an incentive for the player to pick other races than the Drath, but currently there are none as far as I can see (because the Drath start out with so many and so big 'locked' boni).

Did your English teacher tell you "boni" isn't a word?

I do agree with you though. I see all the differences on paper, but generally I can't avoid the feeling that the races all blur together over the course of several games. They're all basically militaristic and aggressive, and tend to respond about the same way to the same conditions. They only seem to differ in how their initial setup affects the speed at which they progress over time.

I love the game, but greater differentiation between the races would be nice.

Somebody posted a similar complaint earlier, noting that all the races are basically agressors-in-waiting...

You say the bonuses are more 'generic' when compared to Civ4, but Civ4 has only...what is it? Eight or ten, or so? And it's true that the bonuses in Civ4 are far more significant, but you also get fewer of them.

And you complain about balance, too, but I never wanted to play Civ4 as anybody but Ghandi, myself.

This "Civ 4" of which you speak - what the F is it?

It is not enough that the AI is different because the human player as we all know does not have any AI thus creating an inbalance. There must be an incentive for the player to pick other races than the Drath, but currently there are none as far as I can see (because the Drath start out with so many and so big 'locked' boni).

You do realize that you can change the starting bonus's to anything you want right? And those race specific bonus's are equaled out with less points to distribute. But if you do reset the point total it removes those 'big locked boni' and instead gives you the points.

I see very few bonus's that Civ4 gives that can't be recreated in GalCiv2's system.

No, I'm just an avid gamer who wants games to be perfect. And by the way, thanks for the compliments. I did get A++ in English in high school.

"Boni" is not a word. What country did you learn English in?

Most of those boni are generic. They stem from the 10 points available for free distribution. What I'm talking about is having locked boni that cannot be changed (for example the Drath's 50% defense bonus). That is, unless you mean to tell me there are boni that are hidden from the player (which at any rate would be silly).

It is not enough that the AI is different because the human player as we all know does not have any AI thus creating an inbalance. There must be an incentive for the player to pick other races than the Drath, but currently there are none as far as I can see (because the Drath start out with so many and so big 'locked' boni).

I don't know about you- if you've ever played the game for example, but the Drath suck. They're never a threat or even capable of defending themselves. Torians seem to be the most powerful race as of the latest patch.

Generic bonuses are good in my opinion- they don't force you to play that race in a certain way.

As for the AI, all games suffer from the difference between the human player and the AI. If you don't like that, play a MMO.

In response to #7, I'd agree with majority of your comments except for the attack on Civ 4. Let's just not attack Civ. It is apples and oranges, but both are TBS and can take a look at similarities and look at what works and doesn't. I don't share the Original Poster's views either. I think both are equally great games, 1 and 2 on the best game of all time (if not , tied ).

To each their own I guess.

The strengths of each race seems to apply to early phases of the game more than anything. They dictate how you start your Conquest more than they seem to define a role for the whole game.

Your attacks on the game's devs were juvenille and personal. I hate reading posts like that on this site where the people who are making the game seem to take feedback so personally.

There aren't any other companys making games like stardock that I know of, and so I wish that your comments were more constructive.

Also, to poster #14. The Drath themselves arent too hard to deal with, but if your diplomacy is low, and you piss them off, theres a good chance that youll have half the galaxy at war with you next turn.

Lets just have all races be EXACTLY the same with only the name and portrait being different.

It seems that's what some of these people want.

BONI? It's not a word in English.

I for one would not have forced restrictions forced upon me forcefully. All it would do is limit the gameplay and replayability. With 'locked' bonuses that race is forever doomed the choice of its path of victory, which is the very antithesis to what this game is about: adaptability and change. Each race is designed to be able to adapt to the situation at hand, the tech tree helps reinforce this.

Now, if said locked bonuses were able to be modified in whatever manner by the player, then that would open up the gameplay. Imagine facing a super race neigh godlike in ability (aka every bonus super high) such that the dread lords are like flies. To fight them, every race truly banding together to try and swat them down, even the dread lords lending a hand. Or more likely, just merely having the ability to further customize a galaxy to unfold more like you want. Sure, some wouldn't want to, but others like Mr. Topic Creator would, and it would make everyone happy.

So basically, why not have locked bonuses? As long as they aren't mandatory...>_>

Lets just have all races be EXACTLY the same with only the name and portrait being different. It seems that's what some of these people want.

Now where did any of us say that? We just said that there already were differences and that you're just ignoring them if you say there aren't.

Actually the races do all act differently. Play with say 4 races at a time with it on random. You play the same each time and watch how the game unfolds differently. Play the campiagn also, it kinda highlights some of the things.

Also keep track of the alignments of the other races when you start noticing people dieing and races falling.

One game I played had a single good race.

It was easy as pie for me to convince the rest of the galaxy to attack them.

Then have them turn on each other. Er wait a sec...

There must be an incentive for the player to pick other races than the Drath

I only play the Yor. I play an evil, evil race of machines. And I can tell at the start of the game by looking at the colors near me what to expect early on. If the Dregs are far away, I have time to build a military etc etc.

'Boni' is what pretentious morons call 'bonuses', I imagine. Like morons who call 'viruses' 'virii' to try to look clever.

The races in GC2 are different. I don't like the C4 clumsy method of giving each group unique units - which wouldn't work properly in GC2 anyway - and ethics provide unique faction stuff. It's just more organic that 'here are your super longbowmen, once you're in the gunpowder age you're boned'.

Frankly, I don't think the C4 civs are particularly distinct in their actions: they might get different units, but they all seem to follow pretty much the same agenda.

It's true that the variation is most significant in the early game, since all the 'abilities' constantly improve through technology. Dip bonuses are 20%+, not '20% of your dip skill'+, so in the late game they become less significant.

People complaining about the Yor must not have my experience - they're almost always one of the first groups to be destroyed.

People complaining about the Yor must not have my experience - they're almost always one of the first groups to be destroyed.

One I saw this in the first few games (as custom race) I started playing as them. I love being at a disadvantage like that.

Unless I get lucky I almost always end up at war. Which I love. Blowing stuff up is akin to eatting a nice 7 course meal. Makes me feel full and complete.

So yeah, I don't play with Influence victory on. But I get to be at war much more. So many races hate my evil self

Play with 1.1 beta 4 and you will see the differences between the races....

I played Civ 4 for 6 months, and the same could be said for that game, that after a while all the races are the same, just as you have said here. If you have not given the game a chance, which it seems you have not, and tried playing different races, and adjusting the bonuses, and changing the political affiliation to suit your play style, you would see that each race has differences, and that those differences are big in different situations.

Boni is a latin form of Bonus (Bonus isn't an english word, its a latin word that was co-opted by english). The -i replaces the -us to indicate a plural. It's acceptable in english though it sounds rather akward since it is more common for people to just slur some extra s's to the end of it to make it plural. Besides this ad hominum (against the person) attacks don't really help anyone or really add anything to a conversation.

Best thing I can say to the OP is have fun playing Civ4, I'll have fun playing Galciv2. I really don't understand why someone would even bother commenting on this. I mean if you wanted this game to be Civ4, then why are you playing this game? Easier to just play that game than to demand that this game become something it is not and was not intended to be.

BTW if you want more difference in the Races, just go to your data\english directory and edit the file named RaceConfig.XML to change what you feel are the errors. They made it this easy to mod the game for a reason. Claiming that the game is flawed because the races arent different enough when stardock went out of their way to provide you with a way to change it is kind of like complaining that the game is too easy because you refuse to play it on anything but cakewalk. Use the features of the game rather than just complain about something that one of these features makes moot.