Is anyone surprised at the latest poll result?

I've never really liked diplomacy in any of the games I've played. I find them very superficial/shallow and mechanical in the way you just know what to expect when dealing with them. And simply not necessary, I can win a game never using diplomacy.

I like the idea of diplomacy and some of the ideas implemented in some of the games like Alpha Centauri (where you could coordinate an attack with other nations) but never pan-out.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Unless there are many other changes to the game mechanics tactical combat would be more of a time sink with little payoff than anything else. That's assuming GC2 mechanics.

If more design/tech options are added to differentiate ships in more areas than just the 6 we have right now and if the strategic movement system is changed to remove the 'open space' problem of zillions (potentially) of combats per turn then tac combat becomes more appealing.

I'm thinking though that as SD refines GC2 in the areas of diplomacy, espinoage, and AI strategy (planetary development and fleet design) that they will have some lockedown features for GC3, allowing them to work on adding completely new components since alot of the grunt work on other aspects will already be done.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree. Stardock have a good formula with the current system. Most improvements in GC3 should probably concentrate on areas that GC2 is lacking.

Successfully updated karma reason!

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).

Successfully updated karma reason!

I voted for more politics. I was thinking of a game I played in GalCiv I where I had my own tiny corner with three planets and decided to stay aloof and win a Tech victory. I was still involved in the game every single turn to counterbalance the strong and build up relations with the hostile. I never fought a battle and it was so fun to pull all the strings.

You can't even bribe the computer to go to war any more. I remember a Masochistic game where I was helpless before the Arceans and their relations had gone hostile. I had no other option but to give the Torians my best planet to attack the Arceans. The Torians' culture was so strong that all of my other planets started flipping and I had to fight a huge cultural defensive action with Cultural Exchange Centers.

I want more benefits to each level of relations with the computer and more options for using the AI to accomplish your goals. What about a research alliance where you'd tell the AI "Research Planetary Invasion for me and you can have X." What about starbase sharing? What about United Planets voting blocs? In GCI I was glad the U.P. wasn't very effective because I thought it was a random distraction from the main game. Now that I've been exposed to it more I want it to become a more important part of the main game.

Humans are great at tactical combat. If you want that choose Multiplayer. Computer AI is great at being predictable diplomatically so that managing your alliances can be a fun part of controlling your empire. More Politics.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would love to see more diplomacy AND tactical battles. However, only if the AI could use them effectively, which is why I voted diplomacy - i think this would be easier for the AI to use sensibly.

also, while tactical combat would be a lot of fun (so long as there was an auto-resolve option) , I think proper diplomacy is more necessary to the game. I guess the danger is trying to put too many new features in, and ending up with a bit of a mangle of features that dont fit together too well.

but to answer the OP, i wasnt too surprised at the results - maybe thought heroes would get a few more votes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Regarding the tactical battles. I entered this on another thread. It's just an idea but would love to get feed back. This would be for GalCiv III NOT GALCIV II:

I was thinking of a limited tactical combat as well but would take it a bit further. Most people who are gasindt tactical combat say it would be either too long to play or that the AI could not be challenging. I would propse the following:

Add a tech in the tech tree called War College or Tactical Command. Once that has been researched, add tactical battle planning module much like the ship designer. Here you would actually create battle formations and battle assignments for each hull type within the formation. The formations wold be designed on a grid organized in zones. So, in essence, your plan will not involve placing actual ships, just placing zones and then assigning the hull type that goes in each zone. For example, zone one would be the front of the formation and could have small fighters assigned, zone two would be the left wing with frigats, zone 3 with some other type of ship, etc. each zone would then allow you to further refine how each ship in that zone would function (ie - target small shipos, protect another zone, etc). Once you finish your plan, you assign a rating from 1 to 5 to denote the battle plans general use. (1 = cut and run, 3 = balanced, 5 = attack at all costs) This would later be used by the AI (I will explain later)This would allow those of us who like to make plans for our battles to tinker away in the war college without slowing the game (just like the ship designer)

When a battle starts, you simply select the battle plan you would like to use and then let the game play it's little movie like it always has.

For the folks that think the AI could not do this, my solution would be for each race to have preprogrammed battle plans they could "use". They would not create their own so the logic should be possible to allow the AI to select its plan based on their own fleet composition, race ethics, aggression, etc. The neat thing would be that if you want them to use your home made battle formations and plans, simply export yours to the races folder for future use. The AI could then use the rating you applied (1 to 5) and use that rating as part of its logic to determine what plan to use. BTW, if gamers did not want to create their own plans, they could use a stock selection that is premade for their race.

This is all just an idea and would have to be worked out in much greater detail but i think this would allow those of us who want more depth in battle to do so and still let others keep playing they always played.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I voted for tactical battles.

God bless you frogboy!

I've been campaigning for tactical combat ever since I started playing the game and one of the things which truly amazed me was the abitlity of some people to make comments such as 'there must only be a few very vocal supporters of tactical combat, because look at all us people arguing against it'. Ha! I'm afraid its completely the other way round gentlemen and (and the handfull of ladies) how does it feel to be beaten with your oun stick? Smarts don't it?

According to Frogboy GC3 will most likely have tactical combat and hopefully heroes too, and I am fairly certain that if he manages to pull it off it will be a truly legendary game. People will no longer refer to MOO2 as the master, it will be forgotten.

Just one more thing peeps, do you remember that kid in simpsons, you know the bully that got on really well with Lisa, what was his name...Nevermind - "HaaHaa!"

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't know what is with implication that Stardock somehow "dismisses" the idea. What people here have asked for (often loudly) that we just throw in tactical battles as a patch or an "expansion" and my answer has always been the same - no. It's too major of a feature to throw in.
In Galciv 1, ship design was the thing people wanted in there and our answer was the same then. If you take the time and have a feature as part of the base design, it can have much better results.
I am, however, surprised at how poorly multiplayer did. I thought it would be at least #2.

Your responses concerning tactical combat in the past have sounded pretty negative. You've said you won't do tactical combat unless you can figure out a way to make the AI competative at it. I guess that's why we feel the way we do.

Tactical battles and ship design go hand in hand IMHO. I design ships that complement my combat style. It's even fun to play around with various designs and try and figure out ways to make them effective in ombat. Ideally, combinations of ship designs are fun to tinker with. I've spent hours in MoO just trying out new ship designs and testing them in combat.

I'm NOT surprised at the poor showing in multiplayer. I've always believed that TBS games are uniquely unsuited to multiplayer. And if the AI is strong enough, people won't want multiplayer. Multiplayer is a nice little feature that probably isn't worth the time it takes to develop it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've been campaigning for tactical combat ever since I started playing the game and one of the things which truly amazed me was the abitlity of some people to make comments such as 'there must only be a few very vocal supporters of tactical combat, because look at all us people arguing against it'. Ha! I'm afraid its completely the other way round gentlemen and (and the handfull of ladies) how does it feel to be beaten with your oun stick? Smarts don't it?

Get your yayas in if you care to. Its not as though tac combat is running away with the poll, its on top though, so good for it. I think most people who are anti tac-combat are that way for GC2, since implementing it with the current mechanics would be pretty assinine, which is exactly the same thing Brad has been saying all along.

As far as a new game goes anythings possible depending on their design decisions for the mechanics. If they add more diversity to ship abilities, and if they scale down the number of possible combats per turn then tac would fit right in. I'm pretty sure they'll cook up a decent enough AI for it, but they have to resist the 'too many features' plague which you know the players will be screaming for. If they make too many features making a challenging tactical AI will simply not be possible, hell the strategic AI in GC2 isn't really that great either (for reasons already elaborated elsewhere), but some of that problem is due to the design decisions making things like sensors and the ability to use them correctly not possible for the AI due to turn length constraints.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am, however, surprised at how poorly multiplayer did. I thought it would be at least #2.

Well I guess the poll doesn't clearly represent what people want. You can only vote for one item and that might distort reality a bit. I'm sure this poll would look a little different if people could have created a list of priorities.
For example Diplomacy Priority 1, Multyplayer priority 2 etc.
In my case I would have voted
1. tactical combat
2. Multiplayer
3. diplomacy

I voted for tactical combat. Cause I only had one vote this poll doesn't reflect that multplayer and diplomacy are also very very important to me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't want to see tactical battles or i want to put it on auto without losing any penalty. i love the game, but if i had to go through each battle it would take me a year to finish a game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Get your yayas in if you care to. Its not as though tac combat is running away with the poll, its on top though, so good for it. I think most people who are anti tac-combat are that way for GC2, since implementing it with the current mechanics would be pretty assinine, which is exactly the same thing Brad has been saying all along.

Yeah, sorry about that, couldn't help it! It had to be done... Current game mechanics? Yeah we all know an implementation of Tak without some serious new ruleset/ algorithmic enhancement/ features etc would be a pointless affair. But the inclusion of all these features would as a by-product deepen the game immeasurably. Think about it new techs, new weapons, more choices.

If they add more diversity to ship abilities, and if they scale down the number of possible combats per turn then tac would fit right in

I'm not sure I fully agree with the number of battles per turn actually being an issue, If something is really enjoyable you don't really care how long it takes, you can always save between battles when the missus gives you an ear bashing or something. Its the increase in battle options thats important. Also, there are always some battles that are a no lose scenario, so you can automate those.

I'm pretty sure they'll cook up a decent enough AI for it, but they have to resist the 'too many features' plague which you know the players will be screaming for

As long as they don't go the way of MOO3 and the dodo, I'd actually like loads of features. Realistically speaking gc3 wont be here for at least a couple of years and the game industry and AI is improving at a dramatic pace, so maybe they will be able to cope with the 'plague' of features. As for GC2 getting tak... I'm hoping that the MAN changes his mind, a decent tak system would propel the game forward and MOO2 will be a forgotten entity.

[quotehell the strategic AI in GC2 isn't really that great either
That one sticks in my throat too, but it is improving and hopefully will be more polished as time goes on.

but some of that problem is due to the design decisions making things like sensors and the ability to use them correctly not possible for the AI due to turn length constraints.

Intensive cpu whatsit should be addressing it in 1.2, I've already set mine to on in anticipation

Oh yeah, his names nelson...."HaaHaa!" - [simpsons contuation from previous post]

Successfully updated karma reason!

As far as I can see the franchise is slowing evolving more and more Moo like or to be more accurate adding more and more features expected in today's current 4x space games (Race design, ship design, tactical combat).

Galciv 1 - Play only as humans, no race design, no ship design , no tactical combat

Why not add ship design and race design?

Objection ! Rrace design allows players to customise cheezy race setups to beat up the AI. Same for ship design, the AI just can't cope.

But lo and behold Galciv 2- Play as multiple races, race design, ship design, but still no tactical combat.

Why not add tactical combat?

Objection! Tactical combat allows players to customise cheezy tactics to beat up the AI, the AI just can't cope...

But want to bet

Galciv 3- Adds Tactical combat??

Successfully updated karma reason!

Maybe it would be good to look at why tactical combat really became the nomber one issue in the poll. I don't know the motives of others so I can only speak for me.

First of all:
War is simply an elemental part of the game. In nearly all games I spend at least 40% of the time with war, no matter what victory type I'm heading for. If the palyer doesn't declare war, the ai will certainly do it sooner or later.
Some people fear that the game would become too war oriented by including Tactics, but sorry, GC to some extent already is. Diplomacy?? What can you do with diplomacy? All you can do is trade items, ask for peace or create alliances. Paying aliens to go to war with others doesn't seem to work anymore. So unless you won't get a "real" diplomacy in the future where you can create different kind of pacts ("No-war" treaty and stuff like that), call your enemies dirty names ( Happens often that I want to throw the most vulgar names ever spoken on this planet into the face of the drengin), as long as you can't demand different things like: "get out of my backyard"!!, "end the alliance with X or...."!, no one can tell me that diplomacy has the same significance in GC as war does. War occurs in every game.

That being said, I just want one part of the game which has a pretty high significance in GC to be well done. I love Tactical combat, but I don't desperately need it. I could live with any other system, if only it results in war being waaay more of a brain consuming activity. I'll take the game civilizastions for comparison again. That game has no TC either, but there is alot more behind battle than in GC currently.

I mean just look at battles as it's currently in GC right now:

-Research a certain weapon type(doesn't really matter what type of weapon to research because they are all the same).
-Send your ships on a straight line into enemy territory, destroy everything that comes your way, the fleets with the higher attack/defense/hitpoints numbers usually wins.

There isn't much more to battle than this. The one with the higher numbers wins. You don't win because you've necessarily done something right, not because you had a brilliant strategy, you just win because somewhere your number is a bit higher. GC only rewards high numbers, but it hardly rewards good strategy and tactics.
The game is all about how to build up your empire fast enough to get the highest numbers. And that is the reason why the motivation of GC drops so quickly midgame to endgame, when the "bore-effect" comes. Once you have the highest numbers the game is over, you won. There is no brilliant tactic or strategy anymore that will beat an empire with much bigger numbers. To me the game almost feels like a matemathical equation, it all develops towards an inavitable end depending on the starting conditions.

I would like to see this game more strategy/tactics rewarding. For this you need more strategical elements, a lot more. The only strategy the game offers is how to build up your empire fast enough to get high numbers, the rest is practically mathematics and a little bit of luck.
War is the king feature of all this number rewarding stuff, and that is why I would like to have some changes here.

Well, I hope I could make it clear why I voted for TC, not because I desperatly want it, just because I want the game to be less number rewarding and more strategy rewarding, especially in battles. It does't necessarily need TC for this, battle elemtes as they exist in the game "civilzation" would do it too.
I can imagine that other people feel the same about it so it's justified to ask, do all these people who voted for Tactical Combat really want it or simply be more independant of boring numbers like me??

I know i exaggerated some things a bit, but hey, I want to make my point clear so everyone understands.

Richrf Wrote:

As far as I can see the franchise is slowing evolving more and more Moo like or to be more accurate adding more and more features expected in today's current 4x space games (Race design, ship design, tactical combat).

Galciv 1 - Play only as humans, no race design, no ship design , no tactical combat

Why not add ship design and race design?

Objection ! Rrace design allows players to customise cheezy race setups to beat up the AI. Same for ship design, the AI just can't cope.

But lo and behold Galciv 2- Play as multiple races, race design, ship design, but still no tactical combat.

Why not add tactical combat?

Objection! Tactical combat allows players to customise cheezy tactics to beat up the AI, the AI just can't cope...

But want to bet

Galciv 3- Adds Tactical combat??

While some people have valid concerns not to include Tactical Combat of which some I can very well understand, I think a lot of people are chronic nay sayers. If the world would turn accordin to them, we still would live in the stone age because every improvement might disturb the balance.
People: Be open to new things, sometimes stuff that appaers odd turn out to be very fun at the end. I still remember years ago I only played strategy games. How fun other genres can be I only found after I gave myself a push and tried something else for once

Successfully updated karma reason!

While some people have valid concerns not to include Tactical Combat of which some I can very well understand, I think a lot of people are chronic nay sayers. If the world would turn accordin to them, we still would live in the stone age because every improvement might disturb the balance.
People: Be open to new things, sometimes stuff that appaers odd turn out to be very fun at the end. I still remember years ago I only played strategy games. How fun other genres can be I only found after I gave myself a push and tried something else for once

well said

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm OK with GalCiv II having a well-done tactical combat system. I won't buy a game with turn-based combat though.

Something loosely based on Homeworld 2-type combat seems logical.

Successfully updated karma reason!

. I won't buy a game with turn-based combat though.

you are already playing a turn based combat game, takt is just taking it to the next level! grip get a...

GO Richrf! GO Morghenes! that was really well said! boo to the naysayers! Down with No!

As far as I can see the franchise is slowing evolving more and more Moo like or to be more accurate adding more and more features expected in today's current 4x space games (Race design, ship design, tactical combat).

Lets not get too deep into this one...Let me explain by example. Lord of the rings: everyone has read or seen the film and most think it / they were amazing. fortunately, i don't. from the book side, modern Fantasy is way ahead of the placid style and bumbling pretentiousness of the trilogy. Compared to the first chronicles of thomas covenant by stephen Donaldson and the song of fire and ice sequence by George rr martin and even Stephen eriksons books of the Malazan, the rings trilogy is stale and poor fare. As for the films: they were merely okay. great effects and, ...er, great effects and totally true to the books....

But the Rings trilogy was groundbreaking and so was MOO, which was eclipsed by MOO2, which will eventually be eclipsed by *enter name here* Comparisons can be made but to say that there is an evolution to merely the best example of a formula is not really very fair.

Successfully updated karma reason!

you are already playing a turn based combat game, takt is just taking it to the next level! grip get a...

Genius, "i won't buy a game with TURN BASED COMBAT" Did I say ANYTHING about turn based strategy?

NO.

GCII is NOT a turn based COMBAT game. It is a combo; turn based strategy with realtime combat simulation.

/rolleyes

Successfully updated karma reason!

not really mate....The thing is, if you think this through, every time you are moving a ship or fleet, you are doing so to complete an objective..with me so far? Now this objective is part of your overall plan - I'm sure you're still with me. Now replace objective with tactic and plan with strategy and you have what i have been driving at

Again, i say we are already playing a tactical game as each 'component' of what we do is part of our overall strategy. Tak is merely taking things to the next level. Whether the final choice is turn based or real time is immaterial. Evolution, baby!
Don't fight it! It really is what nature intended

Successfully updated karma reason!

whoa - sorry to double post but, I missed this:

GCII is NOT a turn based COMBAT game. It is a combo; turn based strategy with realtime combat simulation.

Pardon? realtime combat simulation? No a simulation should be a simulation not simply a viewer - it implies participation of some degree or another. eg Forza motorsport and gran turismo are driving simulators - could you imagine the outcry if all the players could do was watch how their cars did after they fined tuned them to the nth degree? I know this was one of the slogans for GC2, but i have come to realise that this was just a marketing gimmick. Honestly, why should it be any different for us? Its a gimmicky viewer and thats all it is.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ashbery76

Join Date 02/2002

+36

Why is advanced diplomacy and more politics as a separate vote? Cleary more politics is the most popular at this moment.I couldn't care less for tactical battes.In GC2 wars, there are almost 20 battles a turn it would become a snoozefest.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Morghenes and FROOKIE: The more intelligent and well-thought out opinions you post the better. I'm seeing more and more people no longer afraid to say they also would like tak combat, or are we swaying some of them? Is membership in the No Tak Kombat Klub on the decline? One can only hope! We can all thank Stardock for first giving us a chance to vote on the features we would like to see in the next version of the game and then posting the results.

Tak combat RULES!!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

The point to note is that what the developers say have a great influence on a lot of posters.

I'm sure developers also want to do more, but just run out of time and budget to do so.

Some players who miss the feature cut will whine about it and starting bashing the game as being incomplete because it lacks that feature. Since you can't expect the developers to "bash" their own game by saying their game is lacking in an important feature, they will tend to downplay how important that feature is. Whether it is race design or ship design (Galciv 1) or Tactical combat/Multiplayer (Galciv 2), it is simply a matter of making a good face out of necessity.

Sometimes they might even go overboard in their desire to protect their baby and make that feature sound like it's the dumbest thing in the world, and no-one would ever want to see it in or miss it, or the fanboys will take their cue and follow suite.

Of course, they later have to eat humble pie, and start backpedalling , releasing (or considering releasing) expansions (or sequels) where the formerly bashed features that supposedly no one would miss is added.

If you look at what some said about MP at the beginning saying how useless it is, how good their Ai is bah bah, you might think MP has 0% of ever being included, but hey, they were actually considering adding it in an expansion! Too bad they did their job too well in convincing everyone MP is useless and so "Evil won" and not enough people wanted MP.

This whole TC thing is showing the same signs, all those arguments about how Gal civilization is a strategic game, that tactical battles don't and shouldn't make a different in wars, etc etc.. Again desperately trying to convince us that TC is a BAD EVIL feature. But hey apparantly, despite being a super evil feature, it might actually be added in Galciv 3 if enough people want it.

Lesson to be learnt? Defend your product yes, but don't burn your bridges by bashing features your current product doesn't have.... You never know when you might decide to add it in a sequel or expansion pack.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i wouldn't mind tactical battles, i mean i'd buy the expansion, but... what i'd like is more customisation, simply because that's what makes Galactic Civilizations great, i've had this game since soon after release, and even though i've bought many games since then, i still play GalCiv, because i can just make it about something completly different, the 1.2 patch did wonders for modding, i've just made (still needs some work) a Star Wars mod, with the Sith, Old Republic, and Mandolorians, i'll put it up once it's been tested a bit more. I don't think hereos would add much to the game, i just can't see it really, polotics would be nice, but not overboard on it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

Sign in or Create Account

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time:

About us | Contacts | Privacy Statement | Register

©1995-2026 Stardock Entertainment. Galactic Civilizations is a registered trademark of Stardock Entertainment. Steam and the Steam logo are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. Bank Gothic is a trademark of MyFonts and may be registered in certain jurisdictions. All rights reserved.