Undecided Undecided

What would you pay good money for in an expansion? (The unofficial inquiry)

What would you pay good money for in an expansion? (The unofficial inquiry)

Yes I did use the search feature!

Essentially make a list of things in an expansion pack that would make you want to pay Stardock money (put "would be nice" things in a separate list)

Edit:
Yay!!! The forum will let me edit my posts now!

Anyway my thanks to whoever stickied this.

Feel free to post whatever you desire in future expansion packs, even if it has already been suggested (that shows that many people want said feature). Also don't feel compelled to browse through the previous pages of this thread.
224,026 views 399 replies
Reply #251 Top
Here are a few posts I read that I felt I needed to commment on.

Post #11
2. Heroes. Or rather, 'characters'. There is little point in adding something like this if it is only along the lines of '+2 ship weapons' - I can just install a bigger gun instead. I mean a model of character development and creation to simulate the range of personalities one gets in an epic space opera, adding voice and personality to key events. I want Londo Molari in my retinue damn it!


How about having the option of assigning a bonus to ships? You can spread the bonuses around to several ships, so they could strengthen the fleets they are in, or assign them to a single ship and call it your flagship, or something.

Post #30
4. The ability to control the frequency of random events (I just can't get enough!)


I agree. How about for Mega-Events as well?

Post #35
- Orbital Defence (in-system fighter or laser satalites) systems as a planetary build option (no space - a colonisation center improvement). I don't like having to design engineless ships to act as local defences - if they are tied to a planet, they should be a planetary option.


A much more complex planetary defense feature might be useful to have, but not nessacary.

Post #51
space monsters: space sharks, crystalline entities, world eating monoliths, space dragons,


Having mosters, instead of pirates would be a nice change of pace.

Post #65
Idea #4: Communism
Why not have Communism as a form of government. I dunno what the bonus could be for that, but Civ3 made it well i thought. i can see why you wouldn't want this type of Government implemented, quite contraversial.
Just some thoughts.


How about a production bonus? The USSR was succesful at modernizing itself very quickly, but it ultimately fell apart due to finacial problems.

Post #79
5. Random events. Random events seem to die out as soon as you research Xeno Ethics. I'd like to see them continue on, testing your ability to maintain your alignment. Of course, this would necessitate the ability to change alignments but doing is costly. Not only do you lose alignment specific bonuses but you do NOT gain the bonuses of your new alignment either. The only thing that changes is the way other empires look at you. Of course, you could also institute a penalty to morale for the switch since the people wouldn't like it much when a democracy changes to a communist bloc party.
Also here is random events NOT tied to alignment or planetary settlement. More of those too.


I hate random events. I believe that ethical decisions in this game is foundamentally broken. I make a mad dash for "Xeno Ethics" so I can avoid the broken ethical decisions. Making broken ethical decisions occur after researching "Xeno Ethics" is a good way to make me upset.

The reason why I think that ethical decisions are broken, is because, for every event, the good choice only avoids a penalty, or is a penalty. Maybe I'll make a post explaining why its so broken.

Post #88
1. Tactical space combat plz watching my fleet and space ships fight in combat would be wicked maybe you could buy a graphics engine or something for it like in SW empire at war. (note i have no idea how this really works but just a sugestion)


How about, no. Ever since I played Rome: Total War, I've grown to hate turn based games with tactical combat. The human player can ussually out play the AI, so it become more effective to play every battle to get the advantage. It still makes me sick thinking about it.

Post #96
13. Ye gods! the ground based battles are BORing! little movies will spice it up (show core detonation taking place, tsunamis, gassing!) and some element of influencing the battles other than *snore* click odds button to start fight!


How about when choosing invasion tactics, you can place a checkmark beside something that says "Skip animated land battle.". It'll skip the land battle, and could remain checked until you uncheck it, so you don't have to check it for the next invasion, or everyone after that.
Reply #252 Top
- More diplomatic options:
-- The ability to put your grattitude on the table.
-- The ability to put a do this or I'll be unhappy with you on the table.
-- The ability to make or request counter offers to trades you get offered and trades you offer the AI.

- More complex treaty/alliance options than simply agreeing to declare war. Providing ships/tech/money in the event of an ally getting into a war should all be options. The ability to actually see where your fleet is in the galaxy when providing ships.

- A more advanced UP that isn't simply random questions.
-- The ability to influence the votes of other members of the UP.
-- Other members of the UP attempting to influence your votes.
-- The ability to call up certain resolutions.

- A more advanced ship component/world structure system in the xml files. Currently you can't have say a weapon that adds to ship speed, a sensor that functions as ECM, an engine that lowers the range by being harmful to the crew, or a planetary building that does multiple things.

- Either/Or tech tree advancement. You can unlock the entire shield branch by researching the proper defense tree and opening up the rest of the defense techs, -or- you can get access to some of the shield branch techs as forks under the beam weapon branch of the tech tree.
-- The ability to require all previous steps along the tech tree be researched before you can continue along that tree. Trading a weapons tech 6 steps up the tech tree to an AI means they still need to research those six techs they skipped before they can build off what you gave them. Some trees/techs should require it, some should not.

- A secondary research method under private sector funding. You fund the 'private sector' a certain amount each turn and it functions on it's own doing blind research. Alternately you need to build private sector labs instead of regular labs, they cost more to keep active and research whatever they want rather than what you want, but they are a bit more productive than a regular lab.

- Anomalies should spawn randomly as the game goes on rather than all at once in the beginning.

- An option to add +1 +2 +3 to speed/sensor range/life support range for all races based on galaxy size.
Reply #253 Top
Being new to the game, I have but one wish that would be worth a couple of bucks. I would like to have the grid so I could see it better. Most of the time I can't see all of the route I take on ANY ship.
Reply #255 Top
--More complex battle system
Evasion factors(granted by pilot experience and hull size)
Targeting Advantage factors(granted by pilot experience)
Carrier ships
Battle starbases who can attack the enemy ships at will
Superweapons
More complex ground combat
***Better defense system***

--Better diplomacy/options
Like setting a tax percentage on weak races planets or else X happens to them(like a keep peace treaty )

--More techs!















Reply #256 Top
I'm a nooby here, so bear with me. I read through (scimmed, mostly) the posts, and there are a few things I didn't see mentioned.

Space:
Different types of space anomalies, such as nebulae, black-holes, neutron stars, ion storms, pulsars, etc. These would have some affect on game play -
1. Nebulae - you can't see other ships in an nebula.
2. Black-hole - If your ship gets too close, well, it's bye bye!
3. Neutron star - can't see it until you're close to it.
4. Ion storm - moves around the map somewhat randomly, damages ships that pass through it.
5. Pulsar - just cool graphics!

Colonization:
1. Should be able to colonize moons around gas giants.
2. I've seen Dyson Sphere and Ring World ideas mentioned, but these don't work in game terms because of the time it would take to build them (hundreds or thousands of years, likely) But finding this instead of a system of planets would be cool.
3. When a planet is defeated in battle, if it has a space port, and if it has a ship in production that is beyond the 50% point (or so), it should be able to convert that ship to a colony ship and have the opportunity to travel as far from the planet as possible (refugees!).

AI Controlled activity (Not based on races)
1. Independent traders, you'd be able to see these ships traveling around. Target practice for evil races, perhaps. These guys could include individual ships, mining colonies (a race can negotiate with them for raw materials - let the highest bidder win), starbases that are completely independent, and corporate conglomerates.
2. Foreign galaxy colonization or battle fleets. We have some of this already with the events, but what if someone just shows up on the edge of the map unannounced?

These are just some ideas. I'm sure as I play the game more, I'll come up with more. On the other hand, there are lots of great ideas already posted in this thread, and I didn't want to steal anyone else's thunder.

Reply #257 Top
I'd like to be able to send a spy to an enemy for a specific one time job such as stealing a tech, gathering info, destroying a factory, causing a revolt, etc. The spy would either succeed or fail based on it's experience, my tech level, etc.

I don't care for the current method of place and wait.
Reply #258 Top
Feel free to post whatever you desire in future expansion packs, even if it has already been suggested (that shows that many people want said feature). Also don't feel compelled to browse through the previous pages of this thread.


I typically don't buy expansions until the game itself is fixed. More energy should be directed towards that first. But anyway... I don't know what to suggest. I think something more needs to be done with Espionage. Right now it's like tic-tac-toe, too simplistic. And annoying. Being able to make a colony without a planet would also be cool, since that's what we're supposed to be doing for real some day, though I don't know what purpose it would serve. I've mentioned "space mines" before as a potential defense mechanism. But this all could be patched in... and expansion pack would need a lot of substance to be worth paying for, and a few ideas aren't going to cut it.
Reply #259 Top
I prefer facilities located on zero quality planets that would produce substantive amounts of tps or mps or eps... i.e. mining facilities ... military facilities ...research facilities, anything to prevent wasting uncolonizable planets. The tech tree should be modified to allow research which can only be conducted at specific facilities i.e. each research facility should be able to designate an individual technologies as an option to globally setting research goals and multiple facilities should increase research. More types of military facilities for planets ... such as training facilities or training academies which boost ship hp, or ship attack, or ship defense or ship/facility miniturization (i.e. mega-facilities that combine several others like a manufacturing-stock exchange or diplomatic-research facilities, or even one than combines all of them). More logistics, including refueling stations and ships that extend fleet ranges or repair capabilities like Tenders do to current ships; more indepth planetary macro-economics to flush out the details- facility performance would now depend on factors such as moral; more indepth AI regarding politics, espionage, and trade, perhaps agents which could be assigned specific mission profiles instead of a blanket espionage fund. More model detail for battles to include arc of fire and formation tactics, especially detection and command and control (I always liked Harpoon's simulations). In modern warfare detection of the enemy is the critical deciding factor in combat- where first strikes are 96% lethal!
Reply #260 Top
One more thought... in games where technological victories are disabled how about using tps for researching +1 economy, or +1 influence, or some such thing after the tech tree is exhausted? Also another option is to convert unused mps or eps or tps into money.
Reply #261 Top
I would like to see AI that could observe the human player and learn from him as well as teach itself.
Reply #262 Top
More parts in the shipbuilder. Specifically, some really generic rectangles, cubes, bars, spheres, etc., blocky parts that aren't so specialized and flashy so we can really build ships from the ground up. As it stands, the parts are a little too .. specific, if that makes any sense. Think legos or building blocks.
Reply #263 Top
I would like to see more support modules - like an espionage module that could be added to a constructor class vessel that goes to an enemy planet and has a chance to destroy 1 random improvement. or a fighter bay (size 20)that contains 4 drone ships that have 1 hit point and do 1 damage point that can be added to ship designs and which deploy in fleet combat as extra ships. how about facility minaturization where functions are combined, or allowing civs to use research points after the tech tree is exhausted to improve your civs bonuses by +1 or such? or maybe allowing unused mp or ep or tp for morale or influence or money or who knows? i also think the game needs more tutorials on how to use the fancy features you guys put in it. lets face it, anyone can set a game up with a computer opponent designated as team and espionage him until you get the capability of spying on what the AI does turn by turn. but it takes a looonnnggg time to put together the pieces and map a strategy. i personally hate scrolling thru the tech tree to find information that should be available in ingame help files with hypertext and indices. more tutorials and more indepth tutorials. better knowledge base references that are easier to use. access to information via pull-down menus needs to be addressed.
Reply #264 Top
Hope none of this is redundant. Also, don't misunderstand these thoughts and think I don't like the game. A continuous string of suggestions and constructive criticism starts to sound like badmouthing after a while ...

Logistics should be partially based on the size of your civilization. A tiny civ that happens to have awesome research capabilities may be able to field as many capital ships as a large civilization with poor logistics technology, but a huge civ with decent technology in war-production mode should still be able to field more ships than the tiny civ can possibly manage. So perhaps logistic points should be calculated not only from technology but also from military spending, overall resources, population, etc. Of course, maintaining such huge fleets would be terribly expensive ... Also, really large civs wouldn't be able to quickly transfer resources, troops, and ships from one side of their territory to the other; civilian cargo ships have limited engine capacity, too. Perhaps logistics points from each world and station should be split between the fleets nearest them; a certain number of ships can be supported in each region without undue economic hardship -- but the more ships concentrated in one place, the more difficult it becomes to maintain them. A system like that should also include the option of whether or not to have regions help support far-away ships, and supporting ships should be detrimental to local interests as materials flow out without so many flowing back in exchange. Support from far away could be made less effective than nearby help, much as asteroid belts function. In fact, the entire logistics system could be treated very similarly to how industry points from asteroid mining bases are treated, with players being able to select planets and stations and assign them to "send" their logistics points to specific fleets or ships, even splitting points from a single planet between several fleets. Perhaps you could also make it so that ships do not actually need logistics points to function, but lacking them means that the commander simply requisitions all necessary materials from nearby systems -- resulting in penalties to production, morale, ship efficiency, and (if you're neutral or evil and/or the citizens are displeased enough to riot) population. Finally, ships in enemy or non-allied territory will either need to carry all provisions with them, pirate, set up resource gathering points/dumps, or depend on supply lines. The first requires economic buildup beforehand and might be spotted via espionage; the player should choose whether to have a long, slow, difficult-to-detect buildup or a rapid and obvious one. The second one is somewhat dangerous, would boost or degrade your morale depending on factors such as your alignment, and doesn't always work. The third requires intensive defense if you want the resource gathering points to survive for any length of time, although sometimes you might not. The fourth might be very like trade routes and would make you vulnerable to flanking maneuvers, although you can always resort to piracy if your lines are successfully cut by the foe. When passing through allied space, ships could either use one of the above four options or rely on the ally for resources; in fact, whole new treaties could be based around buying the right to have someone else logistically support your fleets for a while (caveat emptor if the other party is an enemy).

On a related note, GalCivII portrays you, the player, as a normal person. If this is so, where are the communication breakdowns and fleets whose location is unknown because they haven't reported in? The ambushes by sensor-stealthed enemy forces that wipe out a fleet before it can call for help, the decoy ships that have you scrambling defenses before you realize they're made of cardboard? The misunderstood instructions and the orders lost due to enemy jamming or solar flares? Effective communications relays, communication technology upgrades, sensor networks, and the like are needed if the player's avatar in-game is truly mortal. The only logical non-metagame reason for the flawless communications and scanning abilities in GalCivII are a) continuous, incredible luck, b) the fact that the player is actually an energy being capable of flawless telepathy reaching all corners of the galaxy instantly and perfectly, or c) the institution of an incredibly complex multiple-redundancy/high-tech network requiring money and time to implement. Lots and lots of money. And you thought being the monarch of an intergalactic empire meant you never had to pay a phone bill again

Seriously, in most wars communications are impeded frequently. The increased effectiveness of future communication systems should be balanced by the vastly increased ranges across which transmissions must pass, better jamming technology, and bigger natural events that could interfere. (Supernovae or gamma ray bursts, for example) A fleet out of communication could be controlled by the AI -- if you don't like what the AI does with your fleet, well, admirals don't always like what their captains do when cut loose from direct supervision and deprived of effective intelligence about the enemy. It would be necessary to put in some provision for either giving preset orders or maintaining communications if the signal loss is deliberate, though. Many times a military unit has chosen to cut transmissions to their base so the enemy can't detect them, or has used electric landlines or written message drops for similar reasons. Ideally, you could send a group to hide in a sensor-distorting, communications-killing nebula; give them orders to come out in three weeks, set up a stealthy courier ship, or even resort to running a fiber-optic cable from outside the nebula in to the hidden ships to stay in touch.

On the subject of treaties, it seems slightly illogical that GalCiv civilizations can research technologies like Majesty, surrender to each other, establish treaties like Eco/Tech/Normal Alliances, and turn themselves into Star Federations without being able to ALSO incorporate alien cultures into their own. Or vice versa. Admittedly, wariness of other cultures and species is a powerful force -- but if you're Altarians and have had a firm alliance and cultural edge on the humans for fifty years with intensive trading and interaction between you, a complete merger of government is not inconceivable. And minor races might quell their own pride, independence, and fear in order to gain permanent protection by a powerful patron. They might even bring a few advantages with them. A game that exemplified this possibility was Birth of the Federation by Microprose. Something would have to be done to balance this, though, or else the Yor and Korath would suffer because no one would join with them. At least, no one with a brain. Alternatively, you could simply point out that isolationist nations often perish and leave it that way, making playing either of those races an added challenge. You could also add the option of enslaving the entire other race if you take their planet/s, although this tastes more like something the Drengin would do.

How about taking advantage of all that unused space in the colony capital? Add modules/upgrades for the capital so you can customize it for whatever you need it to do, or at least make it more than just decoration on the landscape that takes up a square.

Lastly, where are the rare but possible defections or mutinies that steal an entire ship from you? And where are the astronomical objects/events like black holes, neutron stars, nebula, etc?

The only game I've ever found comparable to GalCivII in terms of quality is Birth of the Federation. I very much prefer GalCivII, and BotF had many flaws of it's own, but there are quite a few things from BotF that would be worth looking into as ways to enrich GalCiv. EDIT: Looking back on some of the other posts, I see that upgraded planet/system defenses have been suggested. This is a great example of how many strategy games could benefit from looking at BotF, which had a good system that combined shield generators and anti-ship weapons with orbital batteries.
Reply #265 Top
1)

Id like a the slow start option: the initail colony rush is a game killer for me. personally i found that there's no fun in playing the game after you've colonized the initial systems.

and dont get me started on a colony beeing able to grow to the size of twice the homeworld in just 20 game turns; that's just plain wrong!

so id like to suggest you something a lot more radical:

a) make a huge maintenance cost per colony; something that would really make you think twice about : "Do i want a 4th colony or i should wait until the ones i have start producing some income ?"

b) colony modules should't cary more than 50 (not 500) colonists. this should force you into transporting population into more than one colony ship to a new colony to help it out.

c) lower the population growth significantly. as i said, a colony to be able to outgrow the homeworld in just a few turns is just wrong.

d) lower the ammount of troops that can be carried in a troop module as well; this could be an easy exploit by the player.


Now all of the above soung nice, and bst of it all of them are moddable. My only concern is that the Ai wont be able to keep up with all this. The AI wont transport aditional population in transport ships (colony ships), it wont wait until it has a better aconomy to start colonizing everything in sight and it wil STILL build on all of its colonie either just reasearch labs or just factories. The player coul deasily beat an ai like this.

it would be very cool if it was possible to limit the number of colonies a player has at one time by some tech (let's say government system).

2)

Id like for anomalies to spawn on the map from time to time; id like to see debris from destryed fleets.

3)

id like to be able to place research components and influence components on my ships. for instance i like to send a research ship to investigate a dead star adn it will generate (let's say) 100 rp over the next 10 turns. however the same ship when investigating a gas giant will only get 20 rp in 4 turns.

4)

id like to see nebulas with different properties. while in it it either reduces the sensors, increases defence, increases atack o rmakes the ship invisible.

5)

id like that ships in a fleet would share the range properties. for instance if you place a battleship that would normally have a range of 40) and 5 fighters that would have a range of 10 each the total range of this fleeet shoul be 20. This would be an easy enough response to the "need carrier" threads all over the place.
Reply #266 Top
I'd pay good money for...

Being able to recruit / find / rescue different characters/personalities to use as Governor on your different systems.


Weapons with different range/speed etc

A Tactical Combat option, so you can use formations, putting defensive ships in the front absorbing fire while the long range snipers / missileboats can stay in the back and fire as well as initiative.

Being able to assign a special formation for each fleet for those who prefer the normal combat and not tactical.

More shipsystems with special abilites not just different weapons. Several new defence mechanism as well as offensive, quirky mechanisms like stasisbeams, being able to freeze a ship in place for a short period of time and so forth. The Hyper-X capacitator from MOO2 comes to mind. Even though a race with lesser weapon-technology can prevail by adding a quirky system on a ship using a lesser weaponsystem.

Weaponsystems doing damage over time would also be a great addition (a quirky weapon).

Beams instant (but short range)

Missiles take longer time to travel but have long range and so forth.

Roaming spacemonsters added to random special events.

More alien portraits to be used for Custom race.

More skills / abilities / superpowers to choose from for Customization race.

Being able to assign a special setting for a governor having control of a planet, for example, production, economy, research and population, letting the governor auto-build buildings by choosing a specific preset.

Want a planet dedicated to making money? Choose the Economy-preset for that Governor etc and he will build the buildings necessary.

A spy/espionage-system that is more effective in stealing tech and is less micro-intensive than it is now. Easier to manage.

Auto-building on Starbases. Set a Constructor auto-travelling back and forth from planet to base with the parts/modules.





Reply #267 Top

One word: streamline.

Everything aspect of the game should be there to benefit playability and player experience. If it doesn't, it goes.

First, I'd streamline the interface. Everything should be accessible from the main map screen. CONTEXT MENUS! Get rid of all the fake metal borders. Waste of space. Make it look like a transparent HUD on my Imperial Command ship. Or some other nice design conceit. Ditch the whole push F4 for this screen and F5 for that. It's jarring to the player, and a waste of time. I should be able to adjust my tax rate from the main screen. Let me adjust it anywhere else it makes sense, but keep that kind of duplication to a minimum.

Get rid of the "production capacity" slider. Again, a waste of my time. It ads nothing to the gameplay experience. Look for other things like that can be ditched.

Make the gameplay mechanics transparent and easily understandable to all players. I should not need to read through tons of (awful) documentation, suspect Wiki articles, and long forum posts to understand that adding a Virtual Reality Center isn't going to help out morale that much after all. What does it add to my experience playing the game to make morale improvements affect some "base morale" instead of the number I see as a planets approval rating? It's frustrating, and it makes me think there's a bug, or it makes me think something hasn't been documented correctly, and either way it makes me not like playing the game as much, because I don't know what the best strategy to carry out is.

Add something like the Civilopedia. Use tooltips EVERYWHERE, and make sure they are ALWAYS 100% ABSOLUTELY accurate.

You've probably played Civ IV. Civ IV is a classic game. It's beautiful, it's exquisitely balanced, it's quick to understand play but difficult to master, and the interface is elegant and simple. Compared to Civ III (which I despised with a passion), Civ IV is terrific, though it has it's flaws.

Re trade: I shouldn't have to figure out which trade routes are the best for me to use. (Where is that information supplied now anyway?)

And I should have much better Civilization-wide management tools. It should be easy and fast for me to know which planets are idle, which are close to revolt, which have enemies nearby, etc. etc.

A fleet manager, where I can specify "Make sure every planet has 2 ships defending it, and make sure I have 3 fleets of size 12," would be brilliant, and just have the computer build the ships, and then replenish them as they were destroyed.

Upgrading and designing ships should be much, much, much easier. It's not hard per se, and it's actually one of the things I like, but what a hassle! With every advance, I have to guess whether or not it's going to be worthwhile to design a new class of ship.

Auto-naming ships would also be terrific. Like, "Long Range Freighter" or "Long Ranger Hyper Freighter".

And finally, there should be nothing generic in the game. "Influence resource" or "military resource": lame. I mean, give them cool names, like "Shrine of the Precursors" and "Neutronium Archeolith". Make it clear what they are, but make them sound more interesting. For auto-named ships, have the auto-generated names be subtitles, and come up with a cool name for that specific ship. Like, "Enterprise" for the name, and underneath in little letters, "Exploration Flagship".

In the distant future, I want planets that have 100 billion populations, where there are dozens of trade routes crisscrossing the galaxy, with massive fleets of ships engaged in epic battles. But it all needs to be fun, which means it needs to be manageable, or at least, just on the edge of chaos
Reply #268 Top
I'd like to add a couple game-play suggestions:

"Holding" a ship: When moving my ships around, sometimes I want to "hold" a ship in place for a turn and take it out of the "tab" order. The only way to do that presently is hit the space bar, but that zero's its remaining movement points. It shouldn't. I should be able to "hold" a ship in place during a turn, then if circumstances dictate, still be able to move that ship later in the same turn.

Combat tactics: Without going into tactical combat, it might be interesting to give the captain certain "orders" for how to conduct a combat situation. For example, telling a ship to "slow down" an advancing force by engaging and fleeing (and staying alive!). Here are some ideas, which can be selected based upon the situation:

These would apply to individual ships or to fleets as a whole.
1. Fight 'till the death (which is what we currently have now)
2. Fighting retreat/Blockade - we know the advancing force is bigger, but perhaps we can slow down their advance. It would require that there be some movement points available (or possibly "borrow" their movement points from the next turn)
3. (Fleet only) Protect weak ships - this one annoys me - weaker or damaged ships get targeted, but you should be able to set your strategy to protect the weaker or damaged ships. I'd rather have a fleet with 6 slightly damaged ships than lose a ship completely.
4. Skirmish - similar to fighting retreat, but the idea here is to dive in with your ship or fleet, do minimal or targeted damage, then get away before the enemy does significant harm.
5. Target ship - you tell your captain(s) to destroy a specific target ship at all costs. If this ship is destroyed, then your ships retreat to a safe distance.
6. Sacrifice - Ability to use your ships to sacrifice themselves - forgoing protection and evasion tactics in favor of ramming the enemy ships.

As you can guess, various dynamics can arise here making for interesting situations. For example, I send my "fleet" with orders to destroy the enemy transport (targeted ship), but they are set to protect "weak" ships... cool, huh? May not take us to the level of full tactical combat, but it does give us some new flexibility.

Reply #269 Top
I'm not a big fan of disposable constructors. Half of my attention is spent managing vast fleets of constructors that are flying around my neighborhood. Maybe starbases could just upgrade themselves after a constructor places it on the map?
Reply #270 Top
Setting a constructor on auto-route (from a planet to a base, back and forth), bringing a module to the base each time instead of removing the structor would settle the problem with hundreds of constructors.
Reply #271 Top
Things I currently want.

1) Multiplayer

2) For the Tech Trading to work the same for the computer as it does the player. Maybe have tech trading reduce a civ's research ability each tech they trade for?

3) Revamped Starbase Defense Modules. A well defended starbase should be able to fight off an end-game fleet. Make Starbase Defenses stackable and upgradeable.

4) Events based on political triggers

5) Popularity based on more then tax rate and population

6) Advisors (you can tell I've played EU3 lately)

7) A better espionage system where spies can perform specific sabotage if placed on certain tiles. Maybe some of the spy options can be brought in from EU3 such as causing revolts, reducing trade, sabotaging ships, commisioning pirates, etc...

8) Economic and research treaties to be aid packages

9) Set initial gov't spending to 100%

10) Get rid of Orbital Fleet Managers- ships in orbit defend in fleet automatically.

Reply #272 Top
At present GalCiv is a "Brute Force" game, gather a large population and massive Fleets, and essentially your done - unless the in game balancing of Mega Events catches you out. There is little tactical finese in deep space - the areas between sectors - and at times around star systems are pretty much window dressing and void of action.

From a game development viewpoint these areas cry out for some kind of activity
- Long Range deep penetration by small highly mobile and well armed raiding parties, specific targets or for general missions ambushing ships moving to RV points. That would spawn defensive positioning by opponents to prevent disruption, which in itself provides more tactical targets of opportunity, which ..... etc, becomes self feeding

- Rest Areas for re-grouping / troops rear-area rest & recouperation. Build in a moral boost etc as reward for using them, make them targets for deep range range missions, provide need to defend them depending on distance from main areas of activity, that provides incentive for oppoents to be original in approach and execution of attack plans.

- Minefields. There are large tracts of the game area under utilised. The ability to sow minefields would be a good method of both defence enhancement, and an ability to be used to protect an open flank on attacking Star systems. Use of the imagination on types of mines and effects would produce a new focus and immersion factor.

- Minelayers & Minesweepers. If you accept minefields, these two are a given.

- Deep Space Defense Outposts. Large "Death Star" sized objects with varying short and long range weapon systems to enforce a greater depth of thought on how Star Systems are attacked or to provide a presence in little used areas. Could optionally be interlinked by minefields ( a mainstay military principle is that minefields should always be covered by offensive fire systems)

- Mandatory Logistical Routes to areas of Operations. At present the battle fleets grind away without reloading (as such), no maintenance & repair bases, no logistical supply needs, no spare parts, no military re-supply convoys etc etc. Lots of room for innovation, which can also tie into minefields, long range penetration raids etc. Give various penalties for convoys being taken out, mandate defence of logistical supply routes - which gives more targets for Long Range Groups to attack (who may need a minesweeper and/or minelayer with them to get at the Routes) etc all self feeding.

The list could be endless, and would need to be developed over time, but in essence it would provide a whole new depth to the game, and instill thought processes beyond "bigger is better" brute force which is the overall characteristic of the game. In true GalCiv tradition this aspect of the game should be able to be an on/off configuration option as many aspects would utilise existing xml table values in adding to or subtracting from the points value of varying abilities depending on what happened in the new activities. Basically its a conceptual suggestion, hopefully spawning activity in deep space - many things possible, not just those suggested here, which are shown as food for thought and hopefully sparking innovation within the general concept.

Potentially huge and complex yes - but it can be implemented in easy stages and easily incrementally enhanced should GalCiv continue to grow, evolve and sell.

Regards
Zy
Reply #273 Top
About the only way I can see not buying a future GalCiv expansion is if it's primary addition was multiplayer, which I simply have no use for. As long as the single player content justifies the price tag, I'll preorder the thing in a heartbeat.
Reply #274 Top
Zydor, you have some interesting observations. I think planets will always be the focus of activity because capturing planets is ultimately the goal of conflict. We eliminate fleets because they oppose our occupation or threaten our planets and trade routes. Empty space can generate 4 bc per turn if you fill it with influence starbases. Perhaps ship range should only be determined by military starbases not planets or other star bases? Minefields would be difficult to code because of game balance - how do you implement mining planets or trade routes? How do you create AI that can react or implement such changes with out giving away the entire game or crushing the player?
Reply #275 Top
I think the devs should be recognized for their effort to limit 100B worlds. However, there is always room for improvement. Making morale change exponentially after 22b is counterintuitive. Morale should be linked to tax rate and influence just like "real life". If you see some one more happy and prosperous than you, most people will want to emulate that life style. Embassies should only multiply planenatary influence not create it. An empire with an absurd tax rate should take a big morale and influence hit, whereas an empire with high moral should have more influence because culture only expresses happiness, it doesn't create it. This means the player needs to strike a delicate balance between taxable income and morale which is why the stock exchange improvement is needed - to generate additional income for the empire. There is more "game sense" to link food with population and have larger populations require more farms not morale buildings(i.e. additional infrastructure to support an increased demand). While it did "fix" the original problem it creates a new one ... (i.e. 11b population worlds with 80% tax rates). Maybe Frogboy sould look into this further