Any chance for tactical combat?

Space Empires V, to the best of my knowlege, will not implemt a RTS minigame. I doubt GalCiv will either, since turn based tactical combat is not on the table.

Unlikely but never say never I guess. There have been numerous long threads on this subject and it is pretty much DOA. The most that you might hope for in the future are some simple tactical attack options similar to what you get on the invasion screen.

There have been lots of posts on tactical combat. However, there were hundreds about how this game isn't a game without multiplayer. And look what happened there, 2:1 ratio on people who would pay for it.

Maybe for galciv3. But if you look at how cheesed the MoO games with it were, then you perhaps see why it's not here.

The difference between MP and tactical combat is that for the former unlike the latter, Stardock doesn't seem to be philisophically opposed to having it, the reason they left it out was due to priority reasons hence the poll on a MP expansion.

I also suspect if a poll was made about expansion adding tactical combat, it would fare way better than MP.


Tactical combat ala Moo and Master of magic would be a lot of fun, but the AI would be even more disadvantaged. The problem caused by the fact that humans can always 'first strike' combat will be nothing compared to the crazyness of full on Moo style tactical combat.

It's not cheese per se, just a recognition that the AI can never match humans there.

The problem for the AI would be like Heroes of might and magic x10 worse, because at least in Heroes, the unit stats are fixed and you can't build your own custom units and even then the AI in heroes is not close to top notch even though in some respects it's pretty close to chess.

Now imagine a chess game where the pieces themselves don't have fixed abilities. A nightmare!

Personally I don't mind, because I play games for fun, even in a stripped down game with rules that the AI can cope with, it still can't match me without cheating, so worrying that tactical combat will make it worse is not a big deal.

But then, see, Space Empires V will have that feature and I know I am looking forward to it and not only because of this nice feature.

Space Empires V, to the best of my knowlege, will not implemt a RTS minigame. I doubt GalCiv will either, since turn based tactical combat is not on the table.

Space Empires 5 will have real time space and ground battles along with the turn based strategy. Here is the website:
Link

I plan to purchase Space Empires 5 as soon as I spot it on the store shelves. It is to be released in June 2006.

-Wade

I fear you may be disspointed. The only quote I was able to find on the topic was "watch the battles play out in glorious real time 3d". It sounds like what GalCiv2 was advertising.

Of course if it turns out otherwise I may have to add it to my wishlist. After Suporeme Commander and a system to run it, of course.

I thinkest the biggest problem is getting an AI that could handle tactical combat. Brad is the lead guy on Galciv and for all of Stardock, and it's the AI that is his biggest passion.

I simply haven't seen many tactical combats that were fun to play, where the AI was very competent once things got interesting. To make battles interesting, you need to introduce something to the combat resolution besides straight math (e.g., the special abilities for units in Heroes), but it's very hard to model this for an AI.

It's just too easy to cheese the AI, the way it was in MoO or Heroes.

A real-time tactical combat system done right would be a game in its own right. Games such as Homeworld or Warcraft are all about that. Besides, I'm not sure adding this kind of add-on would suit the game. The moment you play games on larger maps, a single turn could suddenly start taking so much time you're disoriented or just plain bored.

Adding certain tactical options is a more plausible extra but I'm not sure it would add that much to the game. StarTrek: Birth of the Federation uses this in a turn-based tactical combat and it boils down to a game of rock-paper-scissor, a gamble. The reason it works in the invasion-aspect of the game is because you know what the effects are and the other side doesn't get to pull the rug from under you by merely a lucky gamble.

As others stated before, adding depth to combat also introduces obstacles to the AI. I would applaud efforts to add more aspects to combat, but I'd rather have a simple (simplistic) version that's fair to the AI than an involved one that allows you to plow through the AI without any significant resistance.

Perhaps adding special abilities would help adding depth to combat? The most similar 4X game I know to GalCiv is Alpha Centauri. You can choose weapons and defences in a slightly dumbed down way but what adds a lot to the game are the abilities. Abilities are tied in to weapons and hulls as well and encourage you to tailor units to very specific situations or opponents. Sadly, I have few ideas as to what kind of abilities you could introduce in this game (terrain is not really an issue here). Adding abilities would require an extensive overhaul of the combat system.

If anyone ever played "Birth of the Federation", that had simple turn-based tactical combat which I would like to see here.

You couldn't move ships around at will, but you could designate specific targets for attack each turn (allowing the player to concentrate on either the most deadly target or another target e.g. attack transports first to stop an invasion force.

With a 1HP Transport this becomes a bit silly, but with some tweaking it could allow players to stop an invasion fleet without having to destroy the whole fleet, as you do now.

Agreed. Even if a full blown tactical combat is impossible due to programming difficulty and AI problems, choosing your targets and perhaps the option to retreat would be nice additions.

So it all boils down to the following voting options:

Would you like to see tactical combation in Galciv2?
1 Yes, real-time, just like homeworld
2 Yes, turn-based, but full combat, like Space Empires IV
3 Yes, but a significantly simplified version
4 Either turn-based or real-time, just don't simplify things!
5 No, any version would detract from the game as a whole
6 I don't care

To the argument against a full-blown implementation: See Rome Total War, there you have it, both modes work well together. You really don't need to compare things to the bad examples, like Moo3, where they royally screwed things up.

I would vote for 4.

And by the way, the AI isn't so much in a disadvantage if you do not allow to save within a battle. In fact, for larger battles, the AI is in a clear advantage, even for professional players. And then, just like in Total War, you can still choose to not play out most of the minor battles. Instead use just what we have now, some automated resolve.

Wrong. As I said with MoO, and I think Brad himself has said, tactical combat would wipe the hell out of the AI because it isn't scripter and can't react properly in the situation. Also, he said that "he didn't want players to feel like they had to fight every battle just to get the full advantage".

I vote 5.

Oh, and one more comment on Space Empires V: If you have a look at the released screenshots, then you will see all kinds of controls necessary to control various participating ships in the battle screens. Why would they have it, if there's no way to control the ships? That, and the fact that Space Empires has always also been about playing out the battles leaves no doubt, that you will have a battle engine much like homeworld, but more detailed (at least because you have handrafted each and every of your ships)

For the implementation of tactical battles in Galciv, I think the most clever way to do that would be to licence/buy (homeworld?, I-War?, freelancer?) or take a working engine (VegaStrike?), instead of developing one from scratch.

Or take an own one. That 2D-shooter-style multiplayer space game which stardock has - would be nice enough.

Marcathonas: Well, even though the player wipes the hell out of the AI in the battles in Rome: Total War, the game still remains highly interesting to play. It's all about adjustments: Once you know, you can beat a three times bigger army just because your'e better, you will constantly find yourself in battles with even worse odds and hoping to win it. This makes both the strategy more interesting (will these troops suffice to hold the line?) down to the tactical level (if I loose this battle, which already looks botched, I will loose that important city/planet!!)

Also, this is not difficult to teach the global strategy AI, to dynamically adjust it's approximations whether it will win a battle or not: Once it has lost several three-to-one battles, it will simply try to make sure a four-to-one battle next time.

So once again, if any developer is reading this at all: Would it be possible to make such a poll? I think, people like me would just shut up if they see, that most other people just don't want such a detraction.

Unfortunately, tactical combat may never make it ito GC2. I've championed the cause once myself, but its the whole exploitation potential that keeps this from becoming a reality.

The only real argument that people have against is that it will make the game too easy. You can happily ignore the people who say it will be too hard to code.

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

The tech list will need to be expanded - ranged weapons, troop killing guns etc

A wider variety of ships will be available - Long range fighters anyone?

Planetary defences will become more important. - defence sats, planetside launchers, batteries etc

Boarding ships - for this alone bring it back much fun was had with this.

Carriers and one man fighters - If star wars, Battlestar galactica and pretty much every single space opera can have it, why can't we?

But this is much repeated fare, but I'm glad you brought this up huhoh - BTW i'd vote 2, twice if i'd get the chance.

Marcanthonas - Both of us know you'd love to see Tactical Combat if it was good enough. Don't be diagreeable

Ironically, my main quarrel with space combat is the tame appearance of the whole. I was quite disturbed when I saw the mass driver ammo slither its way over to the target. I had expected tracers, flashy bits, streams of bullets and lots of noise. Nope, just one green blob.

I don't feel comfortable giving players more options during battle. Sure, players might get tempted to test themselves to fight overwhelming numbers but if the general playing field is level, the point is a little moot. After all, the computer still has to build 4-5 ships to match the player's single vessel.

If the combat system would be altered, I'd prefer to see it given some depth by adding abilities rather than options. But this could also invite more micromanagement and I don't know how people would like to painstakingly assemble fleets with the right kind of ships. Something general as giving weapons and defences different effects rather than the matching principle would be a good compromise? Example on top of my head would be chances of scoring critical hits, armour-piercing ammo for weapons and percentage absorption from shield, extra HP from armour, chance to miss from ECM for defences.

Anyway, just a thought.

Also, this is not difficult to teach the global strategy AI, to dynamically adjust it's approximations whether it will win a battle or not: Once it has lost several three-to-one battles, it will simply try to make sure a four-to-one battle next time.

This is NOT a neural net. It doesn't learn the way you think. It adapts to a strategy based on criteria, but will not remember things like tactical combat. Anyway, do you code AI?

Marcathonas: Yes, I happen to be even something like an AI researcher. So I know exactly, that training a simple AI to recalculate the value of certain ship constellations (or strength weightings) based on the outcome of battles is a pretty easy thing to do. I'd even volonteer to do such a thing.

Frankly, I think the problem with this forum is that too many too intelligent people are here. This leads to many very good arguments being thrown that way and this way. In the same time each of those intelligent people also has a good self-esteem and doesn't give up his opinion lightly. At least this pretty much happens equally with scientists. But there it is mostly temporary, because after a while, some hypothesis simple wins over the others due to evidence.

Or so I guess. I do not mean to insult anyone - it's just that the same (pretty good) arguments are brought up again and again without any noticeable progress.

And FROOKIE: At least we can hope for Space Empires V. However, there is one catch:
- Galciv has a really nice boiled-down global strategy, but non-existing tactical combat (not even the prerequisites in form of a varied enough tech-tree)
- Space Empires has a nice combat resolve, but it's quite badly balanced on the global strategy things. (For example the splitting of resources into three types is absolutely superfluous, as mostly either you have enough (of all) or not, I never found myself particularly lacking, say, radioactives, for some reason)

Its a bloody swap off isn't it?

One game has a good strategic framework, but a shallow tactical element - GC2, and SE5 is the opposite. This brings to mind the new coke advert:

Lime in one hand, coke in the other - "Put the lime in the coke...."

That said i should be playing SE4 as its out in a coulpe of weeks here in Blighty [England]. And SE5 as soon as its out.

So, given the lacking interest in this topic, I guess, we won't even see a poll about it. It's a pity, to be honest, but I can still hope for SEV then.

FROOKIE: By the way, Space Empires IV has already been released on steam, so you can get it there. I have it for some years now already, from the point on, when it was originally released.

Cool - thanks for he heads up on SEIV.

just do what i do - keep em talking, whenever the opportunity arises make a statement (and get flamed).

The thing is Tactical combat is one element Frogboy would love to do if they could get a decent level of difficulty - I'm hoping they're still trying.

The reason for the lack of interest has probably got to do with fact that the topic is a well trodden field and there seems to be nothing new growing here.

Later init.

Hey Frookie! How ya doin'? Glad to see that you're still promoting some form of tactical combat [along with the OP].
I see these types of posts every couple of days and can only conclude that there is a demand for this OPTION, despite what the No Tak Kombat Klub wants everyone to believe. I know I still would like to see it.

It always makes me laugh to see the posts of some of the people on this forum who are so cock-sure why such-and-such can't or won't be done. Like they have a direct line to God or something. Anyway, all you tac combat supporters keep the faith; maybe dreams do come true!

In fact, I'd also buy a stand-alone game, where I could design my ships with the ship-editor from galciv2 and then fight it out in some tactical combat. But combined with a greater sense of purpose by actually do it inside of galciv, would be the nicest option, of course.

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

About the challenge: that's indeed intricate and there's no simple answer to how to make tactical combat in space challenging. Simply pitting two forces against each other can only result in a pure numbers game as we have it now. I think, sword of the stars is attempting some things with respect to that. We'll see how it turns out.

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*. If Stardock released a tactical RTS game based in the GalCiv universe, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But I will not pay for -- not even download for free -- an implementation of tactical combat in a game of strategy. 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.