Suggestions for expansion/sequel

Let's make the game better!

I enjoy playing GalCiv2 so far, but there are some aspect where it could preform much better.

Let's start:


1. SHIP COMBAT - the ability to have some degree of control over the battle (could be researched - like Remote Field Command tech). Something like in Birth of the Federation.
Basicly you can select a single ship, all ships of the same class or a group of ships that fit the same category (command ship, scouts, fast attack ships, assault ships, non-combat..) and then give them general orders (flank, circle, ram, evade, strafe, chase,...) and then select the target (or target group). Click go and the battle starts with the ships trying to follow the orders the best they can. After 10 or so seconds the game auto-pauses and you can change orders.
Simple and effective.
Allso, weapon normals are a must. Let the ship fire when their guns are alligned with the target. Tuurets track and fire.

2. WEAPONS - too plain and not diverse enough. and hte division is bad. It should be devided into ENERGY WEAPONS (Laser, plasma, etc....), MASS DRIVERS and MISSILES. So what's hte differense you ask? The difference is that laser and plasma are DIFFERNT weapons, with different pros and cons that are researched independently. For instance, lasers have long range and high accuracy (due to their speed), but low damage, while plasma is devastating but has short range. Allso energy weapons aren't beams by default, they can allso be pulse weapons.

Let's deepen this a bit - ability to create your OWN WEAPON. How? Well, you research a tech..let's say plasma. Now you want to make a new weapon next ot the default opnes you get. You get a screen where you select the base weapon type (energy, mass driver, missile), sub-type (laser, plasma) and delivery system(beam ,pulase) and then you get displayed it's stats - range, accuracy, damage, size, power requirements, rate of fire...And each oif this stats you can increase or decrease with the + and - icons. The more you increase the stats, the more costly the weapon becomes and the longer it takes to build it and mantain it...needles to say it increases allmost exponentially. The more - you put in, the price goes down....Auto-balance.
Next you select it's apperance (normal and turreted) and give it a name and then you get to research it and later use it:D

One more thing to add is the abiltiy to actually have turrets and fixed weapons, and for that to matter in the battle.
So when equipping a ship you select if hte weapon is forward fixed, is it a forward turet (90° fire cone) or one of the full turrets (180° or 270° or 360°).
Next you select it's mount. The bigger the mount, the more space it takes up, but so does it deal more damage. Same for smaller mounts.

3. SHIP PARTS - more of them...lot more...and maby give all races acess to all standard hull parts (the cockpit parts).
Allso, the ability to encase a engine, so basicly changing it's appearance to something more armored and rugged looking..

4. RESEARCH - Alliances and Trade should be available from the very begining. It just doesn't make no sense that I can't make a alliance or trade with a race I'm good friends with. Especiall since I can build mammoth colony ships, so freighters should be very simple. the same could be said for transports..you shoudl get the earlier...

To connect with the weapons thingy, if you research energy weapons you woudl get 3-4 new options - plasma based weapons, lasers, tachions, etc.. Increasing level in each of them would give some bonuses to the basic design. And I'm not talking just size reduction - it can be anything - from rate of fire to damage to range to size....

Some racial specials would be nice - special tech that once researched can be implemented into ships or weapons...for instance - focusing cristals or gattling technology. So if you have gattling tech as a special you researched, you can design your new plasma gun and add the gattling special to it for drasticly increased ROF (for a substantial cost)

5. BALANCE - we're dealing with to osmall a numbers.. bigger numbers = more room for differences and balance. Increase HP of all ships 10 fold.. a hp ship becomes a 60hp one. Weapons would allso get an increase so more subtle differencs can be achived. the armor shoudl be implemented differenlty - when giving the ship armor you select the thickness - light, medium or heavy - and hte size, protection factor and cost are adjusted accordingly.
Smaller ships should be faster than large ones, and their speed and agiltiy should be their asset. Simply link the engine speed with ship mass. Smaller ship = less mass to push = more acceleration
This will make smaller ships usefull in battle as they will avoid getting hit and try to flank larger ships.

6. MORE DIPLOMACY OPTIONS - non-agression treaty (both nations recognize teritorial borders..AI will not try to colonize your planets), Research Alliance (BIG research boost), AFFILATE (your ships can go into orbit of your affilate nad use their starbases)

I got more but don't have time to type it all down now....
20,625 views 35 replies
Reply #1 Top
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP MULTIPLE POSTING! Bloody hell, I counted four of your posts next to each other. Just bump it next time!.

1)No. Never. Ever. Ever. Evaaar. Nyet. Nein. Nope. Tactical combat will never be in galciv2, this has been stated many times because it is next to the Terror Stars that the AI can't use as TEH ULTIMATE CHEEZ0RS! So don't get your hopes up. And weapons will always fire automatically. Only the timing that they do it will be changed.

2) Again, no. Yes, we do know that weapons are different, that a laser is a concentrated beam of electro-magnetism while plasma is a state of matter of hydrogen at about 5000 degrees celsius. They're both beams though. Turrets will also not be in battle. Currently you can have add-ons, and I think some people have made moving turrest mods, but they won't be used in combat. BECAUSE IT'S TACTICAL.

3) There will be more stuff coming. And it's the races main hull parts that are unique. You want them to share, then go get Kyro's hull mod from the library. It also lets you use DL hulls. Engine casing? Why?

4) Firstly you said "It makes sense". Aren't double negatives wonderful? And of course they bloody shouldn't be available. We have to learn to do things on an intergalactic level. If aliens arrived today, we wouldn't be able to set up trade routes, we wouldn't know how to, or what they want. Transports, again you're wrong, you have to learn the logistics involved. You're arguments aren't valid, because it's never been done before, so needs research. Along with your theory, NASA should have just made a big plane and shot it skywards and seen what happens. No, they had to figure out how to do these things first.

Racial techs are, I believe, 1.2 or 1.3 material, but probably (hopefully) nothing like you said.

5) NOOOOOOOO! Smaller ships aren't faster because a) the engines are bigger ships are bigger to begin with and b) you REALLY need to learn intergalactic physics before saying how ships work. There is no drag, so it's pure acceleration. Over the period of a week, the initial inertia from having a larger mass isn't an issue. So that makes that wrong. And there will never be tactical combat, no dodging. EVER. And multiplying would be pointless, it means more chance of a slip up. If you don't like it, go fiddle with the .xml and make a mod. Most people wouldn't appreciate having to fix it from that mechanic.

6) I looked and thought "Hooray! I can be positive!" but no. THERE ARE NO BORDERS! It's just cultural influence. You can use Ally starbases already, there's a resolution that allows it. Ships in orbit= no... just no. I certainly wouldn't be happy if there was a korx battlecruiser over my head, no matter what the reason. Research alliance, just trade tech damnit! otherwise you would control the AI's research, and that would be CHEEEEEEEEEEEEESE.

Next please...
Reply #3 Top
Now... thats a rant


two of them
Reply #4 Top
1. Yes, I'd love to have this, though it'll never happen in GCII. Praying for GCIII but I expect the fanboys will rant until it's taken out. If they really care, they can be boring and use the autocalc.

2. This would be nice with tactical combat, but obviously it's pointless without it. I would definately love to have more control over the development of weapons though.

3. Er... no. The different races should have different styles. In fact, I'd say the opposite and ask for an extra five styles so that each race is unique. If you really want to encase your engines... that's what the jewelry is for.

4. No. It helps set the pace that it takes you time to access some more advanced features.

5. Engines are already bigger for large ships than for small ones. I would have agreed with the HP thing, but they're changing the combat system for 1.2 so that this won't matter.

6. No. A planet isn't yours until your people are standing on the surface. I agree with 'Affiliate' in principle, but I think it should just apply to the standard alliance. Starbase benifits are already shared with allies if you get the right UP vote.
Reply #5 Top
Marcathonas is such an ignorant prick. Ever notice that he replies to everything with NO. And generally starts his replies off with a rude remark? Why do you do this. And who are you to say some of the ideas will NEVER be in the game. Are you employed by Stardock? I hope not, with an attitude like that.

There is nothing wrong with ideas being posted regardless, they are ideas. I have plenty of ideas as well, but I'm sure you would be a prick if I actually listed them.

Just let people post without having to be flamed by you, k? Thanks
Reply #6 Top
Well im sure he replied with no because the person who made the post obviously has no idea what he is talking about.

If he did he would know that the AI handling of this type of crap is near impossible and that his suggestions go against the grain of what Gal Civ stands for.

Reply #7 Top
Marcathonas is such an ignorant prick. Ever notice that he replies to everything with NO. And generally starts his replies off with a rude remark? Why do you do this. And who are you to say some of the ideas will NEVER be in the game. Are you employed by Stardock? I hope not, with an attitude like that.

There is nothing wrong with ideas being posted regardless, they are ideas. I have plenty of ideas as well, but I'm sure you would be a prick if I actually listed them.


You're a f***ing hypocrite. I know this because I read fecking posts you arrogant little twat. The dev's have said no on these issues, so I read them and reply. 4 posts is excessive. And about my comments. Have you read all of them? Last time I checked there was near 1100. Piss off and read them all, then come back and tell me what I write. While you're at it, read the dev's posts that say things like "no tactical combat"
I'm nothing against good ideas, and there are a few on the forums I have bookmarked to see what happens to them, since I really want them in the game. These have already been answered by a fair few people.
If you can list some decent ideas, I'm hardly likely to flame. But then again, if you troll on about things (which, btw, you do) then don't start crying about it when someone doesn't like you.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I was wrong about my posts. Metaverse lists it at 1122. So, when you're done reading EVERY LAST ONE, then feel free to tell me what my general habits are. Until then, have fun
Reply #8 Top
But again, they are just ideas. Are those ideas impossible? He seems to know what he would like in a game. Other games can handle the tactical stuff. Other games allow you to create your own weapons. Other games provide more weapons. Why are the diplomacy ideas bad. Given time I believe the balance issues could be ironed out, The stardock developers seem to be pretty good at what they do.

My point is that an idea is an idea. Make the list, let the developers decide what to use now, what to save for later and what to disregard. Lets not make somebody feel stupid for simply putting some ideas in the forum. Rather than leaving rude replies, potential flamers should just hit the back button instead.

Have you read more of Marcathonas replies? In person he probably wouldn't be brave enough to make some of the remarks he has. And does he or will he talk to his boss in the same way?

Reply #9 Top
Have you read more of Marcathonas replies? In person he probably wouldn't be brave enough to make some of the remarks he has. And does he or will he talk to his boss in the same way?


Pahahaha. I would. And have. And got into fights over it. But anyway, I'm not against ideas, and I'm not a flamer. I'm not trying to make people feel stupid, I'm merely no (I'll admit I'm emphatic about saying no). The fact is, I'm all for more diplomacy options, I just can't see these particular ones working.

This game can handle the tactical stuff. The dev's don't want it to. They might want custom weapons, I don't know. Hell, if it was possible, I would quite like that. But it's a strategy game. It's a spreadsheet. You play by numbers, not by tactical combat. As I said, go read the other posts of mine before commenting. And hey, if you like, I can bring up YOUR forum habits.
Reply #10 Top
so I read


Marcathonas, it doesn't sound like you like anyone.
I am not trying to pick a forum fight here, just let people post their ideas. If ideas are being flamed, then another individual may not post his or her ideas for fear. Then we could possibly miss out on some great features that are very doable by the devs, and that you or I have not thought of.

I am sorry for calling you a prick, I do not wish to be kicked from these forums, if the devs are listening.
Reply #11 Top


This game can handle the tactical stuff. The dev's don't want it to.


Originally the devs didn't want multiplayer either, but it's coming. Nothing is impossible, except maybe my spelling and grammer.
Reply #12 Top
Marcathonas, it doesn't sound like you like anyone.
I am not trying to pick a forum fight here, just let people post their ideas. If ideas are being flamed, then another individual may not post his or her ideas for fear. Then we could possibly miss out on some great features that are very doable by the devs, and that you or I have not thought of.

I am sorry for calling you a prick, I do not wish to be kicked from these forums, if the devs are listening.


I apologise for being a) obnoxious and b) rude.

But the point I'm making is, tactical combat isn't going to make it. Stardock have made this clear. Yet, constant tactical combat threads are produced.

As I said, I love more diplomacy options, just can't see how they work. A research boost would really be better if you could co-ordinate research, making treaties so you both agree to research seperate things and share the tech's. Any research help would be good against the DL, so you could maybe tell the Arceans to do hulls, the Altarians to do weapons, and you get soldiering, then you share them all out. But fixing research of another race (both races sharing research) just wouldn't be fair. Say the AI tries to drag you into a tech that'll take 40 turns? Imagine you need a new weapon NOW. Within 5 turns. Well, you're screwed.

Currently there are no borders, but I would like the AI to at least recognise planetary borders. IE, go near Dratha I cut your gonads off-type borders, which would mean everyone could focus on their own territory. But look at civ, a load of people say you just pile on borders and charge. You're outside of range sure, so the AI won't attack you. A human would recognise it, and probably get a big fast fleet on the other side of the galaxy to zerg-rush them out of existence.

Some of the ideas are good, but a lot of his ones require tactical combat. That's bad because you can't plan tactical combat. Yes I know cocking up is more realistic, but I like to be about a year ahead of myself. So when it goes wrong it's kind of fun to realise "bugger... what now?" whereas with tactical it's "bugger... oh well, get that ship and decimate that fleet".

Bah, I'm all out. Feel free to ridicule me now (I deserve it )
Reply #13 Top
@ Marcathonas
Everybody is allowed to post his ideas here, no matter if you Marcathonas like that or not. There is no need to let someone down only because you disagree. Hope your future posts will be more objective....



Reply #14 Top
Trashman:

1) i'm with you 100% on tactical combat, its a great idea - provided the AI is able to perform well. Even Frogboy reckons its a good idea, so it might come eventually. its in the journals, go look.

2) Yup, the weapon tech list (No, it is not a tech tree, don't even try to pretend that it is) is a bit weak and needs more flavour, (BTW does anyone know if the neutral civs get any of the weopons and defences we are promised or is increased morale and those loverly tech buildings it....?), hell they could even make the tech list into a tree by making sure you have to sometimes research two or more things to get to a certain tech. Also a laser is a 'coherent' beam of 'electromagnetic' radiation.....

3) yeah, whatever you want pal, you want fries with that?

4) I'm afraid i'm going to have to agree with Rant-athonas here on the trading stuff. as for the weopon tech i'm sure we already have some of what you want only its set out differently to how you say you want it (god that almost makes sense). i'd simply settle for more diversity and a structured tech tree. the rest is definitely tactical combat orientated, i like it. As for racial techs bring em on!

5) they've already got the balance on the engines as they are bigger on larger hulls, so its sorted. Its just a shame that they increased the weapon sizes too.

6) Yeah baby! i particularly like your research idea, its similar to Alpha centauri's style of you research this and i'll reasearch that. As for territorial areas...i dunno, its space .... man, it should be free for all! Peace out!

As for what i want.....

a) I want a couple of new story campaigns to play. with more cutscenes than the last one,( i'm playing it again with 1.1 and the DL are wickedly overpowered, but no match..(yet) for my smarms of microfighters.), some actors would be nice too...how about Mark hamill, he's pretty cheap these days....

b) More planetary improvements and wonders and trade goods:
ambrosia - increased lifespan
galactic library - increases races overall reasearch rate.
War college - marines built there are much tougher
anything good to add some more diversity to the gc2 lineup

c) Even better AI

d) Tactical combat. go on shout at me i don't care...

e) more research options => tech tree

f) More espionage options - assasination, tech theif, rioting, kidnapping key personnel, corrupting officials, more...

g) the ability to be negative in racial abilities so as to augment other facets better. this also would enable the ai's to be more diverse in their abilities too, as it allows for a greater 'range' of differences.

h) constructors can be used to make moon bases or defence/radar platforms

Yeah i want a lot, but what i really want to see ( realistically ) is options a, b, c and g. Tactiacal combat is still a pipe dream, so is more research options.

Anyway thanks for listening, later init
Reply #15 Top
Wow what did i miss!
Reply #16 Top
with long winded posts like these where do u people find the time to play the bloody game......

seriously tho, in the original post, if all those suggestions were included in the game, it would be as hard to manage as gerorge w in a candy store.....its a game not a reflection of real life.....so enjoy it as it is and take the improvements that come and be done with it!
Reply #17 Top
What are you talking about neilo, a lot of the stuff in the updates is there precisely because people wanted it. and how did these people let stardock know? not psychically i assure you....
Reply #18 Top
I know the devs aren't going to include tactical combat in Gal Civ II (adding an entirely new game mode is far more than I would expect from a mere update, or even an expansion pack). But that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, or that it wouldn't make the game better.

Yes, obviously the AI 'might not be able to handle it'. There's tons of things the AI can't do as well as a human, such as, say, the game as it already exists. I can beat the AI (as long as it isn't cheating) reasonably easily. The AI would probably perform better if, say, the game only consisted of colonising planets quickly. I reckon it would probably beat me pretty regularly. But the game would then be rubbish.

Besides, I trust the Stardock team to produce a decent tactical AI, if they ever decided to go down that route.
Reply #19 Top
It's not even that I don't like tactical AI. It's just that all the posts that get made about it, and the amount of times it's been answered, just sour me. Hell yes I would love to manage those ships that I've loving created, and we all know it would be great to put everything we have into research when we're losing a war, make one allmighty ship, and make it destroy our opponents. The only problem is we'd then get crushed by one of the other remaining empires, but what the hey, it would be brilliant fun.

a) I want a couple of new story campaigns to play. with more cutscenes than the last one,( i'm playing it again with 1.1 and the DL are wickedly overpowered, but no match..(yet) for my smarms of microfighters.), some actors would be nice too...how about Mark hamill, he's pretty cheap these days....


Expansion! Woo! Drengin campaign! Come on, you all want to eat some green skin... same for more espionage stuff, but focusing on what to steal would be great. Anyone else been good and stolen NLC's seven times in a row? (Yes I know it's being fixed, but still. I had to kill my favourite ally to stop it).

War college - marines built there are much tougher
anything good to add some more diversity to the gc2 lineup


There's a mod for this sort of stuff that adds a few new invasion techs and improvements that are pretty cool.

seriously tho, in the original post, if all those suggestions were included in the game, it would be as hard to manage as gerorge w in a candy store.....its a game not a reflection of real life.....so enjoy it as it is and take the improvements that come and be done with it!


Reply #20 Top
A whole 100% FULL ACK (well, besides the rudeness) with the first post of Marcathonas in this thread.

Btw. thx for always answering all those futile feature requests, as I would need too much time to do so like you. (People should really read some in the forum before making the same requests as dozens before them...)


As for tactical combat... tactical combat sucks. In fact, it sucks quite hard. You guys ever played one of the Total War games? And have you guys ever played a game on a gigantic, everything abundant map?

Now combine your experiences...

Autosolution of tactical combat sucks always. Too much losses always. And winning against inferior tactical AIs = cheese. And you don't want to say that you would want to fight 20plus tactical battles per game turn. Really, take a look at those Total War games. Their AI sucks, it's really bad. And they have about ten times the budget of Stardock...
Reply #21 Top
The campaign AI of the Total War games is worse than the campaign AI in Gal Civ though...

Besides, isn't there a mod for RTW that actually includes an AI that is better than the standard version?

I think all this proves is that the Total War guys suck at AI

In Gal Civ II, the empire build up stuff is better than that in Total War. But the battles are worse. Even if they are a bit easy in TW, they are also a lot of fun. RTW is possibly my second favorite game at the moment (guess who is first). If you combine the universe from Gal Civ with the tactical battles from RTW... Well, the soldiers would look a bit silly walking around in space, but it would be a dead cert for my 'most favoritest game of all time'.

And how can you complain about autocalc? Autocalc is what Gal Civ uses ALL THE TIME.
Reply #22 Top
Sorry for DP...
Reply #23 Top
And how can you complain about autocalc? Autocalc is what Gal Civ uses ALL THE TIME.


I still can complain.

Yes, currently we have autocombat by a defined ruleset and no other possibilities. But if you would have the choice between tactical combat and autocombat it would be differently. The autocombat would need to reflect the real tactical combat, which it can't do. Either autocombat is too weak, too much losses compaired to your tactical combat = you would need to play most of those combats out because you don't want / can't / whatever afford those losses. But if autocombat would be too strong it would be bad for you to play tactical combat because of all of these which could have been avoided.

In addition to that I've never seen a smart AI for tactical combat. Most AIs in about every RTS games are just bad and not match for a bit experienced player. So I doubt that Stardock would be able to provide a tactical AI that would match a players skill.

Also I personaly like the focus on strategy in this game, there is imho enough tactical combat in other RTS games.
Reply #24 Top


Yes, currently we have autocombat by a defined ruleset and no other possibilities. But if you would have the choice between tactical combat and autocombat it would be differently. The autocombat would need to reflect the real tactical combat, which it can't do. Either autocombat is too weak, too much losses compaired to your tactical combat = you would need to play most of those combats out because you don't want / can't / whatever afford those losses. But if autocombat would be too strong it would be bad for you to play tactical combat because of all of these which could have been avoided.


That was the pretty much the exact point Frogboy made in the post I was thinking of. He said he didn't want players feeling like they had to battle out every battle just to get out an advantage, and then they would have to make the advantage weak so it couldn't be cheesed.

Which is why I hate the idea of tactical combat in galciv2, despite the fact I like tactical combat itself. This game is about numbers, not flashy combat.
That, and I suck at it anyway
Reply #25 Top
That's some real twisted logic there.

I don't want tactical combat because if there is tactical combat I'd want to use it. What?

Personally I play EVERY battle in tactical mode in RTW (even my massive army vs. a gang of rebel peasents). I do this not because I have to but because it is just so enjoyable. If you want to autocalc every battle then fine. But don't have a go at me if I want to actually control those ships I spend ages designing.

Gal Civ II is currently a numbers game, but that doesn't mean it will or should always be solely a numbers game.