Ok so the biggest argument of the no-camp is that the ai can't handle tactical combat.

According to that logic all game elements in which the ai is inferior to human should be avoided. One understands that the ai will not be able to handle Tactical combat as good as a human-so one dismisses the idea.
Now can anybody give me ONE example where the ai is better than a human? in any game type?? even as a pure strategy game, the ai is still exploitable, simply on the strategical side. No way can the ai's stragtegy match an half way experienced player-strategy. The only reason the ai can beat me is because it's cheating (economic bonus on crippling and above).
Applying this logic on galciv2 would mean to take out the strategy part of the game because the ai can't handle the strategy as good as an human player can.

The conclusion of this? No matter what you include in the game, strategic or tactical elements etc, the human is smarter than the ai on all fronts. Therefore argueing that ai can't handle tactical combat as good as human is just useless. And that's why I wrote:

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

Face it: in order to beat a half way experianced player the ai will always have to cheat, at least I don't no any game where thats not the case.

Now coming back to tactical Combat (TC): It would have to well done, challenging, sure, but there is NO need to expect ai handling TC as good as a human player, since thats not the case anywhere, in no game and in no game element (ok except chess).

And to come to an end, this is a important sentence:

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

This is the reason why for example moo2 is fun from the beginning to the end. Galciv is fun at the beginning, but fun dropps alot mid game to end game, when moving ships becomes your main activity. Especially when you have the upperhand in the galaxy there is nothing exciting anymore.

@Lucian Gyiira: I can understand that some people don't want TC and strategy mixed, just switch it off than as I'm sure this feature would be otional if ever included in galciv.

I agree about Galciv2 *not* being fun to the end, not even to the middle. There is, in fact, not a single game I actually played to the point where you have to decide between the alignment of your race. (I either always win before, or get bored because I am anyway winning - even on the highest difficulty level) After the first few games it also doesn't make much sense to use the zoomed-in view, where you see your ships. I began to play exclusively on a very zoomed out view, because that's where you don't have to scroll around so much.

But I still play Moo2 games until the end - simply because it's so much fun, to finally crush their forces by yourself, once you've put so much work into researching all the techs and designing your ships. This is something Galciv (3) will have to do something about, or I won't buy it anymore, even though Stardock has such a large sympathy bonus for their openness. I agree with the decision to make Galciv2 basically a nice version of Galciv I, but I certainly want to see much of the money they've earned now wander into innovation. Be it in directions I proposed above or other good ideas I couldn't have thought of.

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.

Lucien Gyiira - Why are you worried about, or even care what other people use to win their games with? If you want to build sandcastles and beat off the occasional pirate while you swallow the galaxy with your massive inluence and hundred influence starbases, good for you. Whats to stop you doing so if tactical combat was included? Carry on as normal. I personally couldn't care less about how you play your game. Its your 'choice'. For my choice of gameplay, i use everything that is at hand, influence included. and the one thing that i know that is weakly developed is the combat element of the game. Both the "epic space battles viewer" and the "invasion visuals" are pretty shallow and gimmicky, no real purpose to either of them, the invasion is actually pretty ugly as far as I'm concerned and could definitely do with some upgrading.

You are completely missing the point about what the inclusion of tactical combat will mean to the structure of the game if it is included in an expansion. Have you even read what Frogboy has written on the subject? The team at stardock are all for tactical combat as long as they are able to create a system that is good enough to test us and enough to allow people who don't want to fight each battle to press auto resolve without any worry about loosing out on a potential victory. I agree with this mode of thought completely.

There are many reasons for Tactical combat to be included in an expansion pack and here are a few that will definiteley be of interest to you and those who prefer a tame game with minimal conflict:

1) The Tech tree will need to be deepened to allow for tactical combat, you love to research - Yes?:
Long and short range weapon techs
New weapons that would only be viable in a Tak simulation such as Ion cannons, troop killers,
Boarding techs, scuttle ship techs, bomb ship techs and associated techs with relation to boarding enemy ships.
Planetary defence techs such as orbiting defence sattellites, minefields, ground batteries and launchers
Carrier ships and one man fighters - How can you deny that these would be amazing?
To name a few ideas that come easily.

2) There will be more colony build choices as described above and you do want whats best for you people don't you?

For the rest of us, bloodthirsty, meat eating, red blooded, barbaric, warmongering, malcontents there will be WAR! We'll finally be able to create elegant and brutal fleet tactics:

Shoot down troop transports before we loose too many ships.
Create pincer movements and decimate the enemy in a crossfire.
Create a kinetic wall of death with our mass cannons
hide troopships behind armoured behemoths until the we can close and board the enemy ships
incapacitate enemy ships with ion cannons.
The new superpower weapons have to be protected until they can unleash their might.
Bomb ships close rapidly with the enemy and blow up in their faces creating havok.
Shoot down enemy missiles and save the targets.
Send your one man fighters into the thick of things to kill small ships and harrass the capitol ships.
And this is all I can think of at the spur of the moment.

Lets compare this to what we all do at the moment, albeit slightly differently and with varying degrees of success:

Build a fleet with your best ships with the newest components:
Gather a few troopships:
Go to enemy worlds
Destroy defending fleet
send in the troopships
Take planet

repeat...again and again and ag-zzzzz

or if you are playing the defensive game and win through influence

Enemy fleet appears
send your fleet to intercept
fleet kills enemy fleet
bolster fleet with more ships to replace those lost
enemy fleet appears
send.....zzzzzzz

Do you see the pattern emerging? No wonder you don't like to fight, its too simplistic - whereas the finer points of developing your worlds can be quite complex and timing can be everything for optimization. With the addition of tactical combat the same level of skillfull play can be applied to the fighting element... you might even enjoy it.

For those that want a 3D and/or realtime tactical combat game - I'm sorry but that would really not be usefull to a game which is turn based. The best format for tactical combat is a tabletop style which would allow us to place heavily armoured ships on the frontline thereby covering weaker ships form the initial barrage and create tactics which are going to be difficult to perform in real time such as pincer movements, enveloping and fighting wedges. Its gotta be turn based and pseudo 3d just like GC2 at the moment.

Why are you worried about, or even care what other people use to win their games with?

Not worried at all, nor do I care. What I do care about is Stardock putting resources into making GalCiv essentially a wargame, when it is not. Warfare is one aspect of it, and I do utilize it frequently. I don't want Stardock to waste their resources on tactical combat when they could overhaul and greatly enhance espionage, the tech victory, diplomacy, etc.

and the one thing that i know that is weakly developed is the combat element of the game

And espionage...and the diplomacy needs a major overhaul...etc...etc...

I agree with this mode of thought completely.

Then you also realize the chances of that are exceptionally low outside of GalCiv3, right? You're essentially asking for what amounts to a second game within a game, after all.

The Tech tree will need to be deepened to allow for tactical combat, you love to research - Yes?:

Not really. I prefer diplomatic victories, as the technology and cultural victories are horribly...dull. Resources on expanding the tech tree for tactical combat could go towards making the tech victory actually interesting.

No wonder you don't like to fight,

Wherever did I say I don't like to fight? I said I don't win primarily through warfare, not that I don't war. I use war to cow those who oppose my dream of a united galactic alliance quite frequently, but by that point most of the galaxy is already part of my alliance. They're the holdouts. I also aggressively cripple those who attack me for expansionist reasons, though I usually return a number of their planets after the war ends. These conflicts are not horribly common, but they occur and I fight them quite brutally -- and enjoy it quite a bit, too.

The simple fact is that combat is quite possibly the most developed part of the game [discounting AI]. I will oppose tactical combat in GC2 for as long as the game is supported, as -- and you probably can guess this now -- the resources could be better spent on improving the diplomatic system, the espionage system [which is why I'm VERY looking forward to the Dark Avatar expansion], making the technology victory interesting, improving the cultural game, making trade more interesting. It should be duly noted though that, should Stardock manage to get it done, I wouldn't oppose a good tactical system in GC3 so long as other good features that the AI could utilize well were introduced/kept.

Not worried at all, nor do I care.

Ah the mercenary comes out at last - glad you could make it.

I agree with you about the improvements in diplomacy and espionage and 'dark avatar' is supposed to address this as was described in a journal entry back in the mists of time, resources have already been allocated for this. So resources allocated toward tactical combat will theoretically not be taken from your pet improvement. So no problem in that regard, yes?

Then you also realize the chances of that are exceptionally low outside of GalCiv3, right? You're essentially asking for what amounts to a second game within a game, after all.

What can I say, I'm a beleiver.

Not really. I prefer diplomatic victories, as the technology and cultural victories are horribly...dull.

You misuderstand, I mean the gaining of tech. Not tech victory which I've always thought as a cheap way of winning. I enjoy trying out different researching strategies and because of my experimentation I can just about keep up with the AI on the highest levels. Also I apologise for calling the Tech list a technology tree, its not a tree, its just a glorified list.
When I have the time (and knowledge) I'm gonna do a tech tree mod, if I'm allowed to do so and create parent / children techs. don't hold your breath people, this is some time away.

Wherever did I say I don't like to fight? I said I don't win primarily through warfare, not that I don't war.

And I don't think you even said that. its just the impression you gave...

quote] I wouldn't oppose a good tactical system in GC3 so long as other good features that the AI could utilize well were introduced/kept

Hey lets all put off till tomorrow what we could do today. Wow if everone was going to do that then nothing would ever get done!

BTW what level u playing on? Because that sure is one lonely looking cakewalk level sitting there

And you never said one thing for or against my breif vision of tactical combat - must have sounded good then.

So what do you reckon lucien? Your pet upgrade is coming and I'm hoping for mine to be developed - you still dead set against it? go on be a sport and tell me you might be willing to let it go

LOL, frookie the proselytiser

Can't help it morghenes

Actualy I dont see the point of all of you who say tactical combat would be easy to exploit AI.... sorry but whoever exploits, is doomed at its own. I never exploited anything in all the games I played, so why should I with galciv 2? And whats about you without selfcontrol, who NOW already vote against tactical combat, because you know you would cheat the AI? Sorry you are poor.

Btw Im still waiting for some tips how to defeat a 3times larger army in HOOM, IG, PI and MOO games, without exploiting.

Ah and I still cant remember poor combat AI in Imperium Galactica, just played 1 and 2 the last few days, no problems.

Actualy I dont see the point of all of you who say tactical combat would be easy to exploit AI....

Lets face it fanbois. The pre-1.2 combat system of GalCiv2 was simply broken. Even without tactical combat. But I cant see that many who complain here about tactical combat have complained about the poor militaristic GalCiv AI.

The people who don't care about the AI playing reasonably effective in tactical combat who are naming other games should just play those games.

The bottom line is that *I* won't make a strategy game in which the AI is not reasonably effective at playing the game.  I don't have the ability to create an AI that is better than the top 10% of players in a given genre, but I can live with that.  What I can't live with is a game in which nearly anyone who plays the game even casually for awhile being able to beat the AI.

More to the point, I don't want players to feel like they have to play the tactical combat battles in order to do well at the game.

I for one don't enjoy tactical combat. I always hit Auto in games like Master of Orion.  But I also felt I HAD to play out remotely close battles myself in order to ensure success because I wanted to win the game and it bugged me that the leader of an entire civilization was having to tell fighters which ship to fire at.

Other people don't agree. That's fine. But at the end of the day, I am the one who decides what is in and what isn't.

Tactical combat won't be in GalCiv II. It might be in GalCiv III.  But ONLY if I can make it in such a way that the people who would hit "Auto resolve" don't feel like there would be a material difference in outcome between auto and having played it through (i.e an expert player might take a 5 to 4 disadvantage and win but they wouldn't be able to take a 5 to 1 disadvantage an win).

The tactical combat crowd will have plenty of options this year.  There's Space Empires V, there's Sword of the Stars.  Go play those games for tactical combat.

For expansion packs, I would prefer to put my time into enhancing the diplomacy options, adding more to espionage, and putting in other features that enhance the CIVILIZATIONS aspects rather than focusing mostly on ship battles.

Lets face it fanbois. The pre-1.2 combat system of GalCiv2 was simply broken. Even without tactical combat. But I cant see that many who complain here about tactical combat have complained about the poor militaristic GalCiv AI.

Simply broken? That's a little melodramatic.  First-strike may have given more advantage to the human player than intended but it is far from broken.  The AI plays a pretty reasonable game with its military for most people.

When even my 12 year old nephew figures out that first-strike pwns the AI....I think I can call it broken.

So no problem in that regard, yes?

Partly not, but I still would prefer that the cultural and trading game be improved, and the technological victory be made more interesting [even something as simple as "once you research such-and-such, the Dread Lords are unleashed and begin conquering the galaxy -- now you and everyone else must fend them off, with the only way to totally defeat them lying in a Technology victory" would be an improvement, in my opinion]. After that, my complaints would be far fewer.

What can I say, I'm a beleiver.

Oh, are you? I always ticked the Believers off so they would attack me, then totally annihilated them. Annoying people, they were, and far too belligerent to be kept standing.

...wait...wrong game...

Not tech victory which I've always thought as a cheap way of winning.

Heh, I consider it the "Last Resort" method of winning. What to get when there are no other ways for you to win, basically.

And I don't think you even said that. its just the impression you gave...

Sorry. My vehement opposition comes more from a desire for every way to be a viable, fun way to win, not just warfare. Which is in my opinion emphasized far too much in far too many games.

Hey lets all put off till tomorrow what we could do today. Wow if everone was going to do that then nothing would ever get done!

Heh, I'm thinking more of Stardock's capability here. Even now, it isn't a big company and doesn't have endless funding. With GC2's success, a lot more stuff will probably go into GC3 as they'll have a bigger budget and probably more alloted time for it. It'd be much, much easier for such a thing to be implemented right from the start, as the tactical game would require its own tactical AI for it, yes? An expansion pack would, at least as far as I know, probably not cover the money spent on it. And increasing the price doesn't always work: see Sony's little situation right now [and they're still going to lose a ton of money].

BTW what level u playing on? Because that sure is one lonely looking cakewalk level sitting there

The Metaverse hates me, so I've submitted almost nothing to it. I play at Normal to Challenging levels. I roleplay my games a lot, too.

And you never said one thing for or against my breif vision of tactical combat - must have sounded good then

Well, I was more indifferent to it than anything else.

Your pet upgrade is coming and I'm hoping for mine to be developed - you still dead set against it? go on be a sport and tell me you might be willing to let it go

Well, I'm not 100% dead set against it [cultural, technological, and trade stuffs!], but I would still prefer it be its own game or something. Though maybe they could create a sort of "lock-on" type thing where, when playing GC2 and *insert tactical GalCiv Universe game here*, you could choose to run tactical games when your fleets enter combat. Or something like that. I don't know how well it would work, but it would still be preferable to the tactical game being in-built, in my opinion. GC3 would be the time to be looking towards a tactical aspect, since it would make the most economic sense at that time. Expansion packs sell less and cost less, and thus I would question the economic feasibility for a company such as Stardock. They aren't Microsoft, after all.

Unless you happen to donate several...uh...million dollars to Stardock. Then I'm sure they wouldn't care too much about the economic feasibility.

I would prefer to put my time into enhancing the diplomacy options

the one thing i'd like to have is the ability to demand that my almost defeated enemies surrender to me

When even my 12 year old nephew figures out that first-strike pwns the AI....I think I can call it broken.

Oh please, I'm sure your 12 year old nephew is creaming it at the highest difficulty level? Good grief.

It's comments like these that make me want to not work on the AI at all. Because I find the AI plenty challenging even with the first-strike advantage even on "Tough". So maybe you and your 12 year old nephew should put your "mad skillz" together and make your own strategy game.

It's comments like these that make me want to not work on the AI at all.

I actually never said you should invest anything further in the AI, so I would be actually very glad when you stop with your hopeless attempts. I even havent asked for tactical combat here. The only thing I have asked for was Multiplayer. But this was long time ago during beta when I thought the Devs could receive useful info by MPbetas. But Brad Wardell assured us infinite replayability. I think he failed. I hope Sword of the Stars will have it.

Most of the satisfaction lost by not having a tactical combat mode can be gained back by reading copious amounts of the GC2 fanfiction. Erotically themed or not, I've found the game merely paved the way for some really good stories.

-Andy

Frogboy, What do you actually think about such ideas of two interlinked games as I have described at the bottom of the first thread-page? That solution is pretty elegant with respect to gamedesign, because you'd combine two very different games (tactical combat and global strategy) without having to break the one or the other.

And by the way, I don't think the AI needs to be unbeatable. It's more important to make it enjoyable. Because, see, the extreme point of AI-development is like chess, where only one or two people in the world can really beat the best chess computer out there. But would a normal guy have fun playing with such a computer? No. Instead it's important to model moods of the AI, some form of communication etc. so that it really feels like you really pissed of that AI by shooting down his trader. Currently galciv2 is the *only* game I ever saw which makes a few attempts in that direction. But there is a long way to go to make it immersive. Basically an AI needs a model of it's state: mood, confidence, jumpiness, you name it. And then it needs many ways to communicate with the player. Not just premade answers and responses, but true parsing of what the player writes and made-up responses which are less forms like currently: "I don't like you because you put X ships into orbit of Y".

@moo2niac: Your nephew should also read a good book sometimes. Do you really think, being a pro at beating galciv2 AI can replace what one can learn from books? But if he's such a pro at galciv2, I'd be almost dead-sure that he's never read more than what's required for school. (Because I'm also quite sure that he spends the rest of his day watching TV - at least the probability for such is 0.99)

Tactical combat won't be in GalCiv II. It might be in GalCiv III.

And there we have it. The end for tak in gc2, directly from the big dog. Well seeing as I'm the eternal optimist, I hope frogboy is the sort of person who tends to change his mind now and then...

@ Huhoh, Morghenes, Dm04, Crazael, Joeld. Looks like we were fighting for a lost cause, but that doesn't mean we were wrong to do so. If tactical combat was included in the game to begin with no-one would have been surprised, offended appalled or even angry. They would just have accepted it, as would most when Gamespot hailed it as the only serious contender for the crown of MOO2. If tak was included from the beginning that 90 odd percent mark would have changed to 95% irregardless of whether the game had multiplayer or not. The game would have had legendary status. Moo2 would have been forgotten for at least a hundred years .

Unfortunately this did not happen, but we are left with a really good game, which thanks to Frogboy and gang is shaping up to be a great game. I suppose the call for tak combat as an expansion was...greedy? Whatever, and as for improvements to the game itself: i'll sacrifice the need for tak in a second if it will mean an improvement to AI effectiveness.

@ Lucien Gyiira - Been interesting debating the finer and not too fine points with you, what was the game you were talking about? beleivers? rings a bell but I can't quite put my finger on it. And it looks like you can take out your wallet with impunity after all As for the several million dollar donation - Aww, shucks! I left my wallet in the other jacke t;)

@ Moo2niac - so far all we've got from you is bunker noobs, prolly and some nastiness. What is it that you want man?
You're not gonna turn into another psycho are you? And you still haven't said what bunker noobs and prolly's are, at least give me that, I'm sure there are others who are dying to know too.

First said, Im impressed by Frogboy posting so often. I have never ever seen the top guy behind a game caring so much about the community. Great job

As for the tatical combats... I wont speak about the most games, except for Imperium Galatica, as I enjoyed it the most and loved the combats there the most. I cant remember the Ai being so awfull bad, that I managed to defeat even 2x+ bigger fleet. When I fought out the battles, the outcome was at best 5-10% better then when I pressed the "auto" button. I never cheated the game, I didnt exploit any bugs (well I havent found any and werent searching the net for some). I consider myself as "above average" up to a "good" tactical player. So the AI was not that bad (on the other hand, maybe Im not under the top 10% players as Frogboy stated). Another point is, I still do not know anyone who was ever able to beat the AI drasticaly without using an exploit or cheat. Lets face the truth, who cheats/exploits is destroying his own gaming experience, why have the developers or other gamers pay for it?

To GalCivII: I dont care so much about tactical combat, I could live (and still can) without in Civ 1-3 and SMAC, so who cares? But there is a flaw I hate about GalCiv combat. Lets explain this through an example: The other day I attacked a transporter flett of the Drengin with 5 Heavy Destroyers (Medium Ship size, full packed with rail guns, no defenses). My enemy was a transporter, escorted by a defensive fregatte (huge size, like no offense, but high defense) and 3 heavy fighters (small size, a lot of missiles, no defense). All in one, the offensive power of the Drengin flett was not even 1/3 of mine. The combat began... and all my 5 destroyers fired all the time on the huge "defensive" ship, doing NO damage. During the complete battle, they got destroyed by the 3 small fighters. And here we go.

The huge ship posed no threat, but the automated combat system attacked it, fully ignoring the damage dealers. Thats where I wish for tactical combat, because something like THIS is pure stupidity. When there will be no tactical combat, how about setting primary and secondary targets, at least? I lost about 70% of my complete space military force through this "bug". I had to raise huge ships with 50% defense 50% offense and I still were losing like 1:3 ships due to this. Thats insane and makes me hate the game, and thats something I wont. I love it.

WIth 1.2b1 it improved a bit, but Im still losing like 1:1,5 ships, though I got better techs.

The other day I attacked a transporter flett of the Drengin with 5 Heavy Destroyers (Medium Ship size, full packed with rail guns, no defenses). My enemy was a transporter, escorted by a defensive fregatte (huge size, like no offense, but high defense) and 3 heavy fighters (small size, a lot of missiles, no defense). All in one, the offensive power of the Drengin flett was not even 1/3 of mine. The combat began... and all my 5 destroyers fired all the time on the huge "defensive" ship, doing NO damage

now that sound like a bug since the algorithm is to attack the ship that has the greater Attack / (HP + Def) ratio (ie most dangerous but easily killed ship). I guess you no longer have a savegame before that battle.
I guess this also means that the calculation should take in account the time needed to kill a particular ship, given the rock - sissors -paper way the attacker and defense are build: A ship that has a defense matching tha attack of a ship should be looked as a tougher target the a ship with same value for defense but in a category that doesn't match the attack of the ship.

I think the game should not always look for how tough a ship is, sometimes its better to destroy the easiest targets first. And not to exploits this, non combatants should stay out of battle and either get automaticaly destroyed when their fleet loses a battle, or enter the combat afterwards.

Still, I would like to see a priority order for battles, where I can determine primary and secondary targets. It could be like 75% of my fleet attacks the primary target, 25% the secondary, so it is not in such full control of the player as Stardock fears.

Btw I wish I could klick on ships in a fleet during a battle to see what it is. Im not using different models for any upgrade and I couldnt even remember how they look like. But it would be nice to see which of my ships are actualy fighting (I give them at least descriptive names). The same for the enemy fleet, I wish I knew what Im fighting there.

I actually never said you should invest anything further in the AI, so I would be actually very glad when you stop with your hopeless attempts. I even havent asked for tactical combat here. The only thing I have asked for was Multiplayer. But this was long time ago during beta when I thought the Devs could receive useful info by MPbetas. But Brad Wardell assured us infinite replayability. I think he failed. I hope Sword of the Stars will have it.

You're free to think what you want.  WHy don't you go run along and hang out in the Sword of the Stars forum. It will have multiplayer and in fact has been designed to be multiplayer from the ground up.

Oh please, I'm sure your 12 year old nephew is creaming it at the highest difficulty level? Good grief. It's comments like these that make me want to not work on the AI at all. Because I find the AI plenty challenging even with the first-strike advantage even on "Tough". So maybe you and your 12 year old nephew should put your "mad skillz" together and make your own strategy game.

You're free to think what you want. WHy don't you go run along and hang out in the Sword of the Stars forum.

I am very surprised by your responses, Frogboy ... even knowing that the person had irritated you.

The tactical combat crowd will have plenty of options this year. There's Space Empires V, there's Sword of the Stars. Go play those games for tactical combat.

It is unfortunate for me that you feel this way, but if that is what you want then I guess I will go now.

I am too surprised by these responses. I take it, that frogboy hasn't got a lot of time recently to recuperate a bit. Besides - of course will we play sword of the stars and Space Empires V, but neither of these game have a chance to come close to the balancedness of the strategic gameplay offered by Galciv and so we will continue to have this unfortunate situation described somewhere on the first page: Either you've got good global strategy, Or you get good tactical combat, but never both.

I will still lurk around here, as I did for the past five years already, and hope for some true innovation (which for me is not a new campaign - I simply don't see how Galciv could possibly be used to set up an interesting campaign. For me innovation would be the combination of galciv with some other form of gameplay, be it tactical combat, an elaborate espionage system or something I haven't ever thought of)