Maybe Im just too stupid or stuborn.... but what exactly makes a good tactical game? It seems like anyone thinks we cant hae both (good general strategy + good tactical combat). I wonder why.

I love the fact you can't control the combat on the micro level. It makes every decision in ship design so much more important. A well designed craft is so much more important now.

Really, what could tactical combat add? It wouldn't make the game more fun, it would make it really really poor. An AI really can't compare with a human on the microcombat level like that. Just play Rome: Total War for proof. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy R:TW, but the AI has to COMPLETELY outnumber you and overpower you for any hope of winning, and even then it isn't certain. Stuff like researching more powerful war-tech won't be as important because people will just micromanage it to death.

Really, what could tactical combat add? It wouldn't make the game more fun, it would make it really really poor. An AI really can't compare with a human on the microcombat level like that. Just play Rome: Total War for proof. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy R:TW, but the AI has to COMPLETELY outnumber you and overpower you for any hope of winning, and even then it isn't certain. Stuff like researching more powerful war-tech won't be as important because people will just micromanage it to death.

Yeah your right, the ai will probably not be as good as an human in tactics. But i'll repeat what I already said above:

Is the ai as good as an human in this game on the strategy part?, is the ai as good as an human in colony management? Is the ai as good as an human at placing it's influence bases at the right place?
And finally: Would the ai ever be as good as an human in tactical combat?

All these question must be answered with NO. The ai being inferior to an human is just someting "natural" for today's videogames (Maybe that will change in the future who knows). Is Tactical combat only permitted when the ai can beat 95 % of all players?
I wish we could finally stop talking about that the ai cant cope with an human, because , no it cant, but that doesn't mean the ai can't be made so that it can cope fairly well with a tactic combat system. In emergency you could create a tactical combat with only a few variables, to make it easier to create an ai that can handle it well.

I vote for tactical even I know it will not happen

One more comment about the AI thing:

10 years ago graphics were the most horrible and most visible thing about computer games. Now we have 3D graphics accelerators.

Nowadays the main media thinks that game-physics is the most horrible about computer games and now were are beginning to see physics accelerators. (Or implementing physics in hardware is much more easy as a standard, compared to other things)

I think in some ten years from now, once graphics and physics are so good that even good players will be challenged to notice improvements, the most horrible and apparent things about computer games will be the AI. This is simply because until now there is (contrary to graphics and physics) not a single standard for AI, basically no research and no hardware (not even prototypical) for that. Thus, we are bound to have horrible game AI in the next few years. In fact, the AI in games is sometimes more advanced than the one being researched in robotics or somesuch.

But already many tasks such as path finding, group tactics, formations, strategic planning etc. are becoming more and more well-understood topics and I see standards emerging there. Standards just like directx. The first ones will have such low-level functions as path finding or group tactics, the more advanced ones will include statistical learning and adaptation algorithms and (this is actually partially my field of research) even some true (i.e. not prescripted), emergent communication with the player.

This will make it more and more easy to implement at least a decent and believable AI in any game without spending lots of time and effort and *then* will we see that AI will not be considered the limiting factor for so many things as it is now.

But until then I sort of understand that frogboy doesn't want tactical combat if he can't guarantee a decent AI for it as well. I just don't understand why no one has yet reacted to my very initial question, whether it'd be possible to make a poll about tactical combat (for galciv 3, 4 or for an expansion pack)?

It wouldn't make the game more fun, it would make it really really poor. An AI really can't compare with a human on the microcombat level like that. Just play Rome: Total War for proof. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy R:TW,

Thats a pretty little contradiction you got there sjlunchbox. If you ignore rome total war and go back a few more years to shogun:TW: That was a vey well done tactical simulator, If it was even on both sides then I would probably win, but if I was outnumbered by even, lets say a third, I lost that battle unless by some miracle I was able to pull off one of my hairbrained schemes. Having an efficient tactical ai is not impossible. And I really enjoyed shogun total war even though the turn based side of the game was very shallow, it was all about the combat.

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

Nobody is infallible. He is as human as the rest of us, but I too was a little bit surprised at the response to Tak even though the recipient to that particular post did not care one way or the other what happens to the developement of GC2. Sh1t happens.

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.

We're not just the tactical combat crowd Mr Wardell, we're the GC2 tactical combat crowd and it isn't even a subtle difference. The main reason for wanting it to be included is because GC2 has captured our imagination and we beleive that Tak would take the game further. Sure, concentrate on diplomacy, races, campaigns, espionage and general improvements, these take the the game forward step by step. But if you want to make a leap: Taks the way to go.
BTW I probably will be playing the games mentioned, but thats because I'm a player of games and I like most good strategy games, but i'm sure i'll put them aside to make way for the expansion.

Maybe Im just too stupid or stuborn.... but what exactly makes a good tactical game? It seems like anyone thinks we cant hae both (good general strategy + good tactical combat). I wonder why.

Yeah, beats the hell out of me too

Why do you compare a space civ empire game to rome TW? Few ships in a fleet fighting in completely open space cant be compared to the battles of rome tw in any way.

WHen you go on it, speak about master of orion, pax imperia, maybe ascendancy, to some degree homeworld, well and of course imperium galactica. (Btw why is everyone ignoring me?)

Homeworld: it is a RTS game, too action oriented. GC2 combat should definitely not be that way
MOO / PaxImperia: 2dimensional, actualy out of date. MOO could be exploited without end. But PaxImperia... played it for the last couple of days and actualy the AI was doing very well.
Ascendancy: there was nothing to exploit, though the AI was quite damn stupid.
Imperium Galatciya 1+2: all the same like FROOKIE said about shogun TW. There was not much to exploit and cheat the AI. I keep doing well at combat, because Im removing damaged ships from combat, the AI is not. But thats all. Having forces of same strength, there was absolutely nothing to overhelm the AI. WHen I won, then due to luck (chance to hit), when I have had more ships that survived, then because I removed damaged ships. Now this can be scripted. And lets face it, it is all about numbers. WHo have more ships? WHo have the better tech equipped? WHen I got that uber weapon in GalCiv2, the simulated (non tactical) combat will wipe out the floor with the AI civs anyway, so what?

I dont care much about tactical combat here, of course it would be nice, but Im sick of this sily sorry excuses.

In my own defense, bear in mind that I was responding to someone who said the AI is "broken" and that their "12 year old nephew" could "pown" it.  Since I wrote the AI, I tend to take such comments personally. What can I say, I'm human.

I'll say what I've said before: There won't be tactical combat in GalCiv II because the AI work necessary to make it decent would be more than what we could afford to do in an update or even an expansion pack.  A sequel to GalCiv might have tactical combat.

Thats a pretty little contradiction you got there sjlunchbox.

Not at all, R:TW and GalcivII are entirely different games. I enjoy R:TW because of the cinematic appeal of it all, the AI is enough to make me feel like a big man when I rip it apart, but nothing special.

I just think Tactical combat would drag everything down. Instead of being able to flick through battles you know aren't too important, you'd HAVE to play through every single one of them, for the simple reason that if you don't and you just autoresolve them, you'll get a less then ideal result.
Turns will linger on, and you'll just get sick of the fourteenth time you have to direct where ships attack. Putting it in to a degree that would satisfy people would take AGES to code in, and open it all up to a whole new realm of bugs.

I just feel it would detract far more then it adds.

@ 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.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Excellent turn based game, there -- no tactical combat, either.

It saddens me to read that there will not be any option for tactical combat in Galciv2. The No Tak Kombat Klub wins.
I hope that Stardock has taken notice of the large numbers of people on these forums who have expressed the strong desire for tactical combat. I suppose I can wait for Galciv3 where hopefully tactical combat will be implemented.

I know that I will be purchasing Sword of the Stars when released [in August now I believe]. Not sure if I will buy into the Space Empires [5] franchise. And I will continue to play Galciv2, download the updates and enjoy mopping the galactic floor with those goody-goody Altarians.

To all those who fought the good fight in support of the option of tactical combat in Galciv2, I salute you. To the No Tak Kombat Klub.....pbbbttt!!!

WHen you go on it, speak about master of orion, pax imperia, maybe ascendancy, to some degree homeworld, well and of course imperium galactica. (Btw why is everyone ignoring me?)

Not ignoring you at all, were on the same page after all , literally and otherwise. Never played imperium galactica, but i'm getting the impression that its a good crack. I'll put it on my aquisition list. Really though, comparisons can be made with Rome TW because it falls under the umbrella of Strategy games and because it has a tactical combat element.

In my own defense, bear in mind that I was responding to someone who said the AI is "broken" and that their "12 year old nephew" could "pown" it. Since I wrote the AI, I tend to take such comments personally. What can I say, I'm human.

Yeah, I would have ripped into him aswell in your shoes, probably a little less politely too.

I'll say what I've said before: There won't be tactical combat in GalCiv II because the AI work necessary to make it decent would be more than what we could afford to do in an update or even an expansion pack. A sequel to GalCiv might have tactical combat.

This brings to mind my uni days and asking for funding from my father - "No money, no fun, your son" to which my dad replied "how sad, too bad, your dad." The thing is its your decision and that is the bottom line. Its not a decision I like, but you've made your reasons clear so i'm gonna repect it. So..about GC3 - How are you feling about tactical combat being a definite possibility and something that you would actively work towards? Every sequel has to have something that essentially sets itself apart from previous iterations, could tak be one of those differences?

Not at all, R:TW and GalcivII are entirely different games. I enjoy R:TW because of the cinematic appeal of it all, the AI is enough to make me feel like a big man when I rip it apart, but nothing special.

It was the wording more than anything else that led me to that particular statement The thing is, while you do have a point when considering the dragging out of turns, your thinking only in terms of time taken. What we "takkers", for want of a better word, are proposing is an enhancement of the combat element designed to make that time period vastly more enjoyable by offering diverse combat choices. It looks like we wont get it, but that does not mean we're going to stop discussing it.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Excellent turn based game, there -- no tactical combat, either.

Ha! I knew that name rang a bell, I too found them to be annoying in the extreme- That miriam was a pinch faced hussey! And that was one game that did not need tak. There was such a wide variety of build choices. But one of my favourite aspects of the game was the citizen management and how they developed, I know its a small thing but it was really well done. The cut-scene storyline was interesting too, but the background colours were simply awfull. Sorry, went a bit off topic there

It saddens me to read that there will not be any option for tactical combat in Galciv2. The No Tak Kombat Klub wins.

No! Everybody loses, its that simple.

To all those who fought the good fight in support of the option of tactical combat in Galciv2, I salute you. To the No Tak Kombat Klub.....pbbbttt!!!

Hehehe - who needs words eh?

In my own defense, bear in mind that I was responding to someone who said the AI is "broken" and that their "12 year old nephew" could "pown" it. Since I wrote the AI, I tend to take such comments personally. What can I say, I'm human.

I understand, Frogboy!

I'll say what I've said before: There won't be tactical combat in GalCiv II because the AI work necessary to make it decent would be more than what we could afford to do in an update or even an expansion pack. A sequel to GalCiv might have tactical combat.

After reading recent posts, reconsidering my childish overreaction, and knowing that I am not really finished playing GalCiv I am not going to leave yet. I need to stick around to see how this develops ... hopefully, with the above "might" oneday changing to "will".


In the meantime, how about huhoh's question:

But until then I sort of understand that frogboy doesn't want tactical combat if he can't guarantee a decent AI for it as well. I just don't understand why no one has yet reacted to my very initial question, whether it'd be possible to make a poll about tactical combat (for galciv 3, 4 or for an expansion pack)?

Would Stardock please address this?

tactical combat in an expansion would be interesting but man that woudl be a lot of work. They would really need to change the way ships are designed. Tactdical combat right now would be so boring.

looks like you got your wish, huhoh! The poll is up! Vote people vote! And its looking very good for the takkers so far!

I'd be happy if they just FIXED the combat viewer.

How about making tactical combat exactly like Chess, at least that's a well known problem with well known algorthirms for handling the game.

A lot of people seem to have some really interesting ideas about tactical combat, so i thought I'd throw my own brainstorm into the mix.

The most difficult part of implementing it will be the AI, in my opinion. The actual features and details of the combat itself are second to getting the AI to work with them. Here's where my idea comes in. I have been an avid fan of Battlefront's Combat Mission series of games. While they are definately not comparable games in many aspects, there are useful lessons that can be learned there; as they have excellent tac ai, imo. They have the AI thinking on two different levels, strategic and tactical. The strat ai does all the thinking until it comes time to resolve a tactical battle. Instead of a dice roll, the tac ai takes over and begins thinking about LOS, firepower, movement, armor, enemy OOB and TO&E, etc. Once the battle is resolved, the strat ai takes the result and continues on its path.

In a game based in space, thinking in 3 dimensions must be achieved. A 2D plane of movement will not be sufficient.

Weapons will probably have to be revisited. Ballistic weapons such as guns and missiles have definite advantages in range over energy and light based weapons (scatter, diffusion, etc.), while being limited by magazine space and speed. Energy weapons by and large are lightspeed weapons, so they give the enemy little to no time to react and deliver near instant firepower. Missiles in their powered flight envelope are able to maneuver to the target and evade countermeasures if so equipped. Missiles can also be used in ballistic strikes against stationary targets (relative) such as starbases or planetary objects. The attacker would simply stay outside the powered flight envelope of any missiles and launch theirs toward the stationary target. The missiles would accelerate until they consumed their fuel, then coast to target. Detecting such an object would not be particularly easy, especially at the velocities they would be approaching. Actually engaging a lone starbase (e.g. no warships defending it) in battle should be a rather rare occurence. As a defender, drawing the attacker into a starbase's defenses would be a tactical challenge for a picket force to overcome. Much like trying to draw a naval force into the range of shore batteries or a recon force trying to draw enemy tanks into range of anti-tank weapons.

Speed will have to factor in more decisively, as markedly faster ships will be able to dictate the terms of an engagement. Right now a CL(tiny) has no choice but to offer battle to a DN (large). In my opinion, a massive vessel like a DN could never accelerate to intercept a CL that didn't want to fight. That leads right back to the tactical challenges I mentioned earlier. Right now I can build fleets of DN's and nothing else while the enemy flounders around with tiny and small hulls. With tactical combat, my big massive fleets would be chasing ghosts...ghosts who would be free to pick at whatever targets of opprotunity come their way.

Ok, enough rambling for now. I need to get my fix...err play galciv2, that is

If combat is turn-based, I'm out.

Hey frogboy, thanks for putting up the vote. However, while taccombat seems to win, this is *not* as clear an issue as it seems: Because basically the taccombat-crowd is probably splitted into fractions, at the very least along the real-time vs. turn-based discussion. Also, advanced diplomacy is probably a lot easier design- and implementation-wise than taccombat. So I am really curious on what you will make out of the results of the poll.

I'd probably fancy a significantly changed gameplay in GalcivIII, not tile-based like now (well, somehow... for example like in imperium galactica 2) and more fluent (but I'd still like turn-based) in order to accomodate for an immersive taccombat. I could actually imagine that one ship is chased by a fleet of ships throughout several turns...

GENIUSES: (from another post)

#23 by Frogboy [Stardock]
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:17 PM

Tactical combat won't be added to GalCiv II. The poll is with regards to a future sequel (ala a GalCiv III).
Also, there would be an option to make it totally optional. So people who don't want to tactical combat need not worry.

Hey frogboy, thanks for putting up the vote. However, while taccombat seems to win, this is *not* as clear an issue as it seems: Because basically the taccombat-crowd is probably splitted into fractions, at the very least along the real-time vs. turn-based discussion

Very true.
I would prefer a turned base TC. Realtime just doesn't fit, I mean this is a strategy game, you should have time to think about your next steps. TC running real time would be more an action game, where you must react and act as fast as possible to get all your commands through.
On the other hand turn based TC has the big disadvatage that the one who makes the first move usually has a big advatage. Maybe it would be possible to make a simultanious turned based TC. Kinda like:

Player A enters all commands for his ships and hits the end button. (commands are not executed yet)

player B enters all commands for his ships and hits the end button. (All players involved have hit the end button and so all commands of both parties are being executed simultanious)

Real time battles can still be strategic. Just look at Rome Total War. OK, the AI can't handle it too well, but if you go for the crazy charge strategy like in most RTS games, you just get yourself killed.

Not that I particularly care about whether it is real time/turn based. I'm just saying don't write off real time as automatically being without tactics.

I personally couldn't care less if either turn based or simutaneous or real time tak combat was implemented, it would still improve the game. a chess style one piece at a time would enable us to play really tactically - it would take an age. so a simple your turn my turn system would be more appropriate. But the real time mode would be a real adrenaline buzz. the simultaneous idea would be a real nailbiter. All the ideas have their own merit and should not be dismissed by anyone especially by us 'combat lovers'

I'm sorry, us takkers are not really split into factions as such: we just want the same thing really. Stop trying to drive a wedge between us

I'm not trying to wedge. However, I know quite some people who say: If it's not turn-based, then it's shit. Then there are other people who say: If it's not real-time, it will be too cumbersome to play.

How about addings something like selective playing out of battles:

When only two or three ships clash, than play it out automatically (or let the player choose). If there are more ships, or really a lot that clash, then let the player choose to play it himself - or only if the chances are bad to win. Lore-wise it would be like - your admiral wants advise how to resolve that difficult battlesituation etc. It'd also be interesting to only be able to play battles if they are near your planets, that adds a lot of risk to invading someone.

I also don't care whether it'd be turn-based or real-time, as long as it's fun to play. So if turn-based, then it's important to be able to knock out various subsystems of the ships. If real-time, then nice formations and other such visually nice stuff should be there.