Personally, I beleive it will add more diversity to the game:

Sure, but don't forget that the AI must be coded to correctly handle any new feature. And handling them doesn't simply meanto fight a tactical combat correctly. This also means DESIGNING ships that will use correctly the new feature. And this also means SPOTTING techs that will help to fight correctly a foe to research them and design ship accordingly.

If you think that the AI isn't doing a good job with the current rules (3 kind of weapon vs 3 kind of defense, unlimited range for weapon.. ) , how do you think it could behave better with new features. The most obvious example of that is the planned change in 1.2 about first strike: the AI was unable to use that specificity of the combat. And you could think it would be an easy feature to code in the AI ...

> Implementing tactical combat into a GC game would be the absolute best way to make sure I won't buy it.

So I take it, you'd vote for point 5.

And that's back to the topic of this thread: I would like to have just a poll about this. I simply would like to know, how many people think like you. But remember, that tactical combat would remain an option, so you'd not have to fight it out (unlike in Total War: Rome, where the numbers game was terribly unbalanced)

@Peace Phoenix: It appears to me, that there is a great deal of anxiety regarding the AI here. But for me this is just an opportunity for innovation: Open up a good interface for AI modules of any major programming language and soon people like me will send in AIs better than any investment on the side of the developer could have possibly produced. It's amazing how far people get even without any interface, just with some parameter tweaking in other games (paradox games come to mind, Space Empires as well)

And believe me, if I get a decent interface for Java, you'll soon get an AI where you'd think twice before going to battle with - even with an evenly-matched force.

@Peace Phoenix: It appears to me, that there is a great deal of anxiety regarding the AI here. But for me this is just an opportunity for innovation: Open up a good interface for AI modules of any major programming language and soon people like me will send in AIs better than any investment on the side of the developer could have possibly produced. It's amazing how far people get even without any interface, just with some parameter tweaking in other games (paradox games come to mind, Space Empires as well) And believe me, if I get a decent interface for Java, you'll soon get an AI where you'd think twice before going to battle with - even with an evenly-matched force.

Well, unless things have changed but GC2 is programmed in C++, the AI isn't scripted and the AI classes aren't open to user modification. And if you look to various journals made by Brad, the coding of the AI rely of the availability of specific API to allow the AI to play the game and know about its surroundings.

I'd really love tactical combat in galciv II. C'mon! who wouldn't like it to fight battles as the commander of a fleet??

Implementing tactical combat into a GC game would be the absolute best way to make sure I won't buy it. Galactic Civilizations is a STRATEGY game, not a TACTICAL game -- you are not Captain Picard, you're Admiral *insert name here*.

For Heavens sake! I just can't understand why some people always argue with this realisme thing. Why is strategy and tactics so incompatible?? If a specific feature is 10 times more fun but a little less realistic, than so what! Give me the fun! I think 99% of all video games are unrealistic.
A little action in form of tactical combat would certainly add some diversity to the game, it would offer some change and "adrenaline" during the game,unlike only looking at numbers from a to z.

Another argument that clearly speaks for tactical combat is the 3 dimsional enviroment the in which the game takes place. Why have a starship builder and invest lots of time to construct ships if ther is hardy any occasion to admire your designs?? The way its now I don't even care for the ship designs that much. I play the game with the camera zoomed out to the max and when a battle ouurs I just hit the finish button. And I think this is the way most people play it.

Those that say that Moo3 proved that this is impossible to do balanced miss the point that Moo2 proved the opposite.

Now I never played Moo3 due to the bad critics, but I played Moo2 probably more than I spent time in school. And I can't agree on this one. The ai was pretty waek in tactical combat in my oppinion.
Basicly I think the ai will never be as good as an human player in tactical combat. But is that a reason to abandon that idea all together?? In moo2 I simply played on a difficult game mode, I was better at tactical combat and the ai had higher bebefits in economy and production etc. This way the chances were evened out again, and I had some action in between all the pondering and calculating

@Phoenix: I know that the game is written in C++ and all that. But this doesn't make it impossible to offer any kind of interface to any other programming language. It only makes it slightly more complicated.

And the API thing - it's basically calling a large array of functions burried deep in the game-code. Offering them to a module is what I (and everyone else) call an interface. And no, this doesn't imply that the AI needs to be 'scripted'. I meant fully programmed AIs.

@Morghenes: I didn't mean the AI in MOO2, I meant the whole tactical thing: Moo2 proved that such a thing is possible and that it is fun.

And the API thing - it's basically calling a large array of functions burried deep in the game-code. Offering them to a module is what I (and everyone else) call an interface. And no, this doesn't imply that the AI needs to be 'scripted'. I meant fully programmed AIs.

Ok, I have badly expressed my point of view. Take a look in some changelogs, you will see that new APIs were implemented to allow a better AI.

And I have never told that the AI must be scripted. But if the classes aren't designed to handle user-made AI modules ....
More if an AI behavior is strange with a user made module, it would pretty difficult to spot the root of the problem.

Just bear in mind - regardless of the feature, any feature that requires more than a few hours of development/testing is not going to be in some update. It's going to be either expansion-only or in a sequel. I am not going to commit to tactical combat or something similar in a sequel but I wouldn't rule it out. I am not against tactical combat, it is only that it would require immense AI work in order to have computer players that use it effectively. I don't want people who hit "auto" to be at a disadvantage. It would also require more sophisticated weapons -- range, targeting, initiative, firing rate, special weapons, etc. in order to be "fun" IMO. One could picture a ship that fires an ion canon that damages an opponents targeting computer which makes their ability to hit decreased. Another ship that fires a weapon that damages the manuevering thrusters of another ship which slows down their combat speed. Another ship that has a mega canon that can only be fired once every 3 cycles and so forth. THAT is what tactical combat would mean to me. And it can be done but it needs good AI. I know people say "But MOO had it.." yea, and in MOO even amateur players could defeat armadas without much work because the AI wasn't set up to play effectively. And even with the work I'd put in, there'd still likely be players who would find some perfect combination. The above is a quote from Frogboy himself - Its from : Idea, First strike, fast and slow weapons Link He's got the right idea, and he wants to do tactical combat, as long as its good enough. Good thing he's the man. Its been busy here.... Hey Joeld! been a long time. Hope everythings been cool. Promotion? Yeah, you gotta fight for what you beleive in man. Reading the above statement by Frogboy may mean that dreams may be closer to reality than some people think. It would totally disrupt the entire flow of the game, and the AI just couldn't hope to handle it -- and the new AI's development would require an investment that could be used on improving other, more strategic features, such as espionage, diplomacy, etc. The AI can't cope with us already in the normal strategic mode once the long-haul initial developement is over. The whole idea of tactical combat is to increase our range of options, diversity, variety and FUN. In a world where everyone wants more, you want less?? As for the AI not handling it, I'm sure your expertise in the field means a great deal, so I'm not going to argue with you in any way....or maybe not - There is a significant portion of the AI that can be 'adjusted', no refined is probably a better word, to accommodate Tactical combat already in place. But it will be difficult to code effective Tactical AI, but, because of my faith - not impossible. Galactic Civilizations is a STRATEGY game, not a TACTICAL game Wrong! Every single time you move a ship / fleet you are doing it tactically. You send the fleet to complete an objective which is part of your overall strategy, [hey why don't we call it objective combat and maybe the no takkers will get confused??]. Tactical combat is taking this 'objective' and making it much more fun, by adding a range of new options and choices for the player to consider. Even the Tech list would be deepened to allow for these options. Think about it? As for not buying an expansion most of us who post on this forum would happily buy a 'turd in a box' if stardock sold it, you and me included [luckily, this will never have to be put to the test] If you think that the AI isn't doing a good job with the current rules (3 kind of weapon vs 3 kind of defense, unlimited range for weapon.. ) , how do you think it could behave better with new features.

I have no complaints with the way the AI uses the 3 weapon / defence system. Its AI planet management thats a bit of a letdown, I'm nowhere near the to being brilliant at GC2, yet I'm now playing on suicidal and my skill level should not be up to task for the bonus allocation. I honestly believe I'd have to play at crippling once this gets sorted..eek, or even tough - but i'll do it with a smile. Happily this is getting a look see in 1.2, along with the highpowered first strike bonus.

Objective Combat Rules!

Later init

Oops, sorry about all the green!

nice post, frookie. You have a calm manner of discussing, this is good in promoting any idea. Have you any idea whether it's possible to at least make such a poll as discussed above possible?

Yeah a poll could be done, but I feel that tactical combat is already on the table as a serious contender for one of the expansions. I think the problem lies in whether or not they can make a really good one that will blow Moo2 out the water.

Shucks, why not - I vote for a poll! Is that allowed?

Yo! Hijack crew, where are you? What do you reckon - Is it Litmus test time for Tactical combat?

to all those people who are going on about how a human player using a small fleet to destroy a large AI fleet, the only times i managed that in MOO2 was when i had vastly superior technology, as in Hyper-advanced 30 everything.

Id be happy if they just improved the combat VISUALS.

SD: what's with the "bobbing up and down" of te ships and the "undulating"? I can't imaging why they put this behavior in!

to all those people who are going on about how a human player using a small fleet to destroy a large AI fleet, the only times i managed that in MOO2 was when i had vastly superior technology, as in Hyper-advanced 30 everything.

And the majority of the ex-moo2 players on this board are these kind of bunker noobs who always reach these stages. (Well phasing cloak-time warp exploit is most popular prolly since these techs are bugged.)

The visuals of the current combation resolution screen is meant to be more symbolic and was programmed by a freshmen. For that, they are incredibly good. In fact, they are so good, that the more I began to want a tactical combat, not just a show.

And about exploiting - well, if someone is technologically advanced, then it's only ok, if he has more options at hand to exploit. Of course, certain techs made it way too easy, but that's basically just a balancing issue.

And the majority of the ex-moo2 players on this board are these kind of bunker noobs who always reach these stages. (Well phasing cloak-time warp exploit is most popular prolly since these techs are bugged.)

"bunker noob'? don't believe i've ever heard of that one... and i never used phasing cloak, it was too cheep, i used sub-space teleporters and a half-dozen Stellar Converters

Yeah whats a bunker noob and whats a prolly? is that like some sort of umbrella? please explain moo2niac as I really would like to know.

In MOO2 the game was over when you got plasma cannons.

You are all talking about MoO games and HOMM, why noone speaks about Ascendancy, PaxImperiaII, ImperiumGalactica 1+2? Personaly, I would say Homeworld like fights would be too action oriented. But all the others? I loved the Imperium Galatctica combat system the most.

Someone said we are not Captain Picard, true, we do not command one ship, but a whole empire, dozens of fleets. Why not give some general orders at the beginning of the battle and see it "real fight" out. Right now its all about numbers. The GalCiv2 combat system is the most disappointing about the game. All ships fire on one, when its destroyed the next, then the next and so on until all are destroyed. Thats so odd, dull and stupid.

Some sort of tactical combat should and have to be there. As it is now, after 3 ingame years of play, the game becomes boring, there is nothing to do. The empire is large and runs at its own, there is not much to "handle" except for combat, but that one runs at its own too and to watch the fights, is boring anyway. Now and then I make a decision about a random RARE event, now and then I have to choose the next tech to research. After hundreds of hours in the shipyard, I do not bother to create new ships and just upgrade existing ones. Now and then I move one ship there and one fleet somewhere else. I fortify my borders and when some stupid civ is idiotic enough to declare war, I overrun it.

I would love tactical combat, as it would be something to do. I do no see the point of Stardock, there are way not enough fights as they state, at least not in my games. On the other hand, they could limit it. Why are my borders protected by about 200 fleets? Each one consist of just 3 ships. WOW. Why not make it ImperiumGalatica like, one capital ship, 2 battleships, few cruisers, few destroyers and some dozens fighters, and limit the fleet number like it was in Ascendancy, or Pax Imperia. No longer dozen of fights per round (though, I never had so many).

Stardock and you speak about AI disadvantage, what one? When you cheat and take the easy way out, its your fault, not of the game. I cant remember ever beating a 3x as large army as mine in HOOM, not in IG, not in Homeworld, never ever. Just go sure the AI is upgrading its ships properly.

GC is quite disappointing and boring. After the initial colony rush, there is absolutely nothing to do. Commanding few ships to its new destination and thats for it.

as far as I remember, gal civ dont have that uber overkill weapon systems like MOO2 had (or Ascendancy).

C'mon! who wouldn't like it to fight battles as the commander of a fleet??

I would, since I'm not the commander of a fleet -- I'm the Emperor, the President, the Supreme Admiral.

For Heavens sake! I just can't understand why some people always argue with this realisme thing.

It has nothing to do with realism, and EVERYTHING to do with fun.

Why is strategy and tactics so incompatible??

They aren't -- they mesh together quite well, actually. But GalCiv2 is a game of STRATEGY, not of TACTICS. Do you understand the difference between being Commander of Fleet Y and being the Supreme Admiral of the Armada or the President of the Federation?

If a specific feature is 10 times more fun but a little less realistic, than so what! Give me the fun! I think 99% of all video games are unrealistic. A little action in form of tactical combat would certainly add some diversity to the game, it would offer some change and "adrenaline" during the game,unlike only looking at numbers from a to z.

Sure, it'd be FUN -- for you warmongers. But it would totally wreck the game -- warfare would become the easiest way to win due to an exploitable tactical AI. I for one do not win primarily through warfare, and seeing warfare become the dominant winning method by an even higher percentage is something I will oppose with everything I have, but most importantly my wallet.

Another argument that clearly speaks for tactical combat is the 3 dimsional enviroment the in which the game takes place.

What do three dimensions have to do with the tactical combat? That'd make it even HARDER to implement [three dimensions, rather than two] and make a good AI for. That's hardly an argument that clearly speaks for it, since GalCiv2 is a single-player game.

Why have a starship builder and invest lots of time to construct ships if ther is hardy any occasion to admire your designs??

It's pretty darn obvious you aren't the consumer whom the ship builder was even aimed at. See, not everyone thinks it's fun playing fully zoomed out. If that's how you play, why would you even bother with the jewelry? Just pick a hull and put equipment on it, choosing that equipment for functionality and not appearance. It serves a great purpose even without the jewelry.

Basicly I think the ai will never be as good as an human player in tactical combat. But is that a reason to abandon that idea all together??

In a single-player strategy game? YES.

I actually hated the strat combat in moo ( because it was to easy to cheese. sry its true.) and in SE 3 because well the larger battle were tedious and really the horrible AI would kill halve your fleet if you let it control your ships for you so yuo ended up doing all the work or dieing.!

NO, i dont need another RTW style game with combats that can easily be beaten almost no matter what you use. Its fine the way it is now.

well, how about implement all of the features of tactical combat...

position, speed, weapon range, accuracy, reload time, firing arcs, all that good stuff...

but don't give the player the option to control the battle? just let them watch, like they do now!

that way, the player can't beat up on an inferior tactical AI, becasue that's who is running the battle for them as well.

it also works with the idea that the player should be Emperor or Rear Admiral at most, rather than Captain of individual ships.

eh?

Hmm, how about something completely new:

Making a second game which is closely linked to Galciv 2 in the following way:

The new game would be a homeworld-style mix with privateer, where you are a mercenary with a few ships and are hired to help out in this or that battle. In the background a galciv2 engine actually slowly plays out against itself and the various civilizations hire you to aid them in their efforts. But you can become so mighty by building up a sufficiently large fleet (if you are successfull), that you could take on an entire civilization. Once you beat it, you can take them over (the Drengins, for example) and suddenly the game would change the perspective and you'd be playing plain galciv2 from that point on.

And then, if you get crushed, the game would switch back to you and your flagship how you try to get away from the invading forces. If you manage to get away, you can start again, slowly building up your fleet, and so on...

Actually, this second game would best be something like Space Empires: Starfury or that russian Star Wolves. In those games I always miss the background-strategy that should be going on.

Hmm, how about something completely new:

Making a second game which is closely linked to Galciv 2 in the following way:

The new game would be a homeworld-style mix with privateer, where you are a mercenary with a few ships and are hired to help out in this or that battle. In the background a galciv2 engine actually slowly plays out against itself and the various civilizations hire you to aid them in their efforts. But you can become so mighty by building up a sufficiently large fleet (if you are successfull), that you could take on an entire civilization. Once you beat it, you can take them over (the Drengins, for example) and suddenly the game would change the perspective and you'd be playing plain galciv2 from that point on.

And then, if you get crushed, the game would switch back to you and your flagship how you try to get away from the invading forces. If you manage to get away, you can start again, slowly building up your fleet, and so on...

Actually, this second game would best be something like Space Empires: Starfury or that russian Star Wolves. In those games I always miss the background-strategy that should be going on.