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

Maybe multiplayer didn't do so well because we're all getting used to the single player only style and would like additional features to support that more than multiplayer... Or most of us figure we've pushed so hard for multiplayer that it will be a feature no matter what, so it would be a wasted vote if we voted for it.

I am, however, surprised at how poorly multiplayer did. I thought it would be at least #2. Maybe multiplayer didn't do so well because we're all getting used to the single player only style and would like additional features to support that more than multiplayer... Or most of us figure we've pushed so hard for multiplayer that it will be a feature no matter what, so it would be a wasted vote if we voted for it.

that and we've heard the argument about MP or not several times and there are better options than doing multiplayer on the poll since the MP thing is a dead horse already.

as far as more sophisicated ship design, the ship design is already pretty sophisicated although could use a few tweaks or streamlining here and there, which is why its kinda low on the poll IMO.

What I really want to see is more advanced diplomacy. I want to have something as streamlined as the Civilization series diplomacy. I know we won't trade resources because of the way the mining starbase area works, but what I want to see are more streamlined functions, such as bieng able to say, 'you will die!' (declare war on the Torians!) instead of just provoking them into attacking or attacking with your ships. right now the way the attack and peace thing is set up in the diplomacy is confusing.

one suggestion for the advanced diplomacy is to be able to ask the AI 'what will make this deal work' kind of thing. It might take some major recoding and the Civilization series diplomacy is actually a really advanced diplomacy AI that had been worked on through the years and various versions of the Civ series. So you prob won't get to that kind of sophisication, but what I'm saying is that the diplomacy could be more user friendly that way.

and like others have said, a 'get the hell outta my territory' option would be great and the more advanced diplomacy option is the one I voted for.

as for Tactical battles, that could be ok, but like others said, have an option to turn off tactical battles.

also, what about making the ground battle thing better? like have different looks or battlefields for the various tactic options?

I voted for tactical battles, but I'd love heroes and advanced diplomacy and politics.

I'm a SP-only player and I don't want tactical battles in GC2. The only thing I want - the ONLY thing - is proper diplomacy/politics, as this would fix the easy late-game and provide more options throughout. I certainly hope no effort is being wasted incorporating tactical play when there are so many more important issues with GC2.

PS, splitting politics and diplomacy into two options was a strange idea, since they're pretty inseparable. Add those two together, and THAT'S your winner. I want better diplomacy (ie, contracts, negotiation, territory disputes etc) AND better politics (AI having a clue about galactic politics, forming power blocs, etc). Turns out most other people do too.

Tough call! I'd like to see better diplomacy, politics and tactical combat. Well, tactical combat doesn't seem to need any help in getting the #1 spot.

I've been a proponent of tactical battles since early on and was always forced to just shake my head at how vigorously the "No Tak Kombat Klub" fought the idea of this option. Their arguments were usually so forceful [and unreasonable] that I thought there must be a whole herd of them. The poll makes them look like a small, loud-mouthed minority.

Oh grow up. While I find the concept of tactical battles utterly tedious (this is a game about civilizations supposedly, not just war - there is already quite enough focus on that thankyou) I would never presume to dismiss any opinion which conflicts with my own as ill-thought out shouting.

Myself, I voted for heroes - let's give some personality to these aliens! (Actually, more interesting diplomacy/politics is probably more important to the game as a whole, but I've loved the idea of heroes in a 4x since Moo2, and they haven't been implemented anywhere since)

I voted for Advanced Diplomacy, but was damn tempted to go for More Politic!

Tactical Battle is a good #3 choice, but I guess it would be just damn to hard to impliment if we wish to keep a true game balance between AI and Computers...

What I would like to see, is automated combat (no direct control, except maybe general orders), and something tactical along this idea:

https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=162&AID=117615&cmd=myposts

And if the developpers has the time, how about this one?

https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=162&AID=109724&cmd=myposts#931983

Tac battles was the only decent choice. I actually voted other. Because mostly i could care less about tac combat.

What I'd love to see :
1) over haul using population to fight invasions.
a) Use soldiers that must be paid, and trained, and are 100x more effective than ordinary people.
have techs and building(s) supporting this.
2) add some variety to ships ie :
a) stealth, and revamp sensors to make them meaningfull.
support ships that can increase range, provide defenses, and other support to other ships
3) overhaul planetary defenses :
a) replace OFM, with a super OFM that also : (in stages by a new fork in tec tree)
1) extends planatary sensor range
2) provides off/def bonuses to ships in orbit
3) give a speed bonus to ships leaving orbit
make existing planetary defense system stronger, or just merge it into above.

Tac combat could be good, but i'm really afraid it's just something else that humans would be better at than an AI. Hence making the game easier, so that you'd have to play at masochistic or higher to get a good game. (personally believe AI's not cheating should be a the target difficulty level for someone pretty good at the game)

I voted for Tactical battles.

As long as it is turn based battles. None of this real time stuff, tones of that out there, and none of it appeals to me.

I love the idea of targeting ship components, but I would be willing to give it up, if I had to, for something like building specific ships for that task. Either at the time of building a ship you could give a ship specialty orders to focus on from a menu, or equip it with certain weapons or some sort of gadgets for the task. So then you would be building more ships for specific tasks.

But if the way the battles are resolved now were made a little more interesting then you would have players playing both types of battle resolving, because both would have advantages and disadvantages.


I think what they are really asking is where do you what SD to spend most of their time on GCIII. It's not that they will not spend time on advanced diplomacy, it's just they will spend more time on tactical battles... that is if that's the way the poll turns out. And I think if tactical battle is going to be in the game, then you would want them to spend more time on it.


I was a little surprised with the poll too, I knew there was a lot of us (tactical battle heads), but I thought we where out numbered going by the threads in here. And surprised multiplayer wasn't a little higher.

I want MP!!!

I assume that there are not many fans of turn-based MP left on the boards here

even though I do play the civ series which has MP capability, I've never done MP with that and so I honestly don't really care about MP in turn based games and probably wouldn't do MP even if it was included.

To col80: What I find "utterly tedious" is the same assinine argument that this game isn't about war and fighting [have you even played the game?] Everyone of my Galciv2 games ends in war, with the AI starting 95% of them. This is why I play the game and I daresay why most people play.

From the beginning, I and most other tactical combat supporters have wanted this included as an "option" so that people like you wouldn't be forced to use it if you didn't want to. In return we would often get flamed for even stating our opinions. While most of us have no problem with other poster's pet desires [your heroes vote for example-something I have little interest in, but if it's something you want...] it always seems that people like you don't want to allow us to have or state our desires. So, I ask you, who's dismissing who?

I voted for more advanced diplomacy because I'm generally happy with how the combat system works. I guess tactical combat would be okay, but I'd probably end up mostly making the same choices about which ship to fire on as the default, faster system does. I'd probably turn it off after I played around with it a few times.

As for advanced diplomacy, that would be useful at just about every stage of the game. I can think of so many times when I've wanted to grab Netro Mancer by the neck, shake him and say, "We're friends! Stop putting your frigging influence starbases by my planets!!" without going to war with the Altarians. Froggy, darling, please make me a 'Grab by neck and shake' option.

well I agree that the battle screen could be made to look more realistic, more like something you'd see in Star Wars or Battleship Galacta. I'm not for something as realistic as in a movie, I mean that they move tactically and not drift all over the place.

I think they would all be great (duh) I especially want tactical combat but they would have to put in an 'auto resolve' so you dont have to fight every battle also ppl have said that it would just be point and click. Not true Rome Total War has and advanced combat system although the ai wasnt that great until harder lvls it was still pretty good at fighting. There are people who say it will be to easy to exploit but when you think about eventually a human will always figure out how to exploit the system to its favour even if it is well done

I just click skip for the battle screen and there is an option to not show the battles. they don't neccesarily have to change the buttons that are on the bottom of the battlescreen viewer.

and yea there will always be some ppl figuring out ways around an AI, no matter how good it is. it's just human nature and the limitations of the AI.

and unlike Rome: Total War, the AI has to deal with moving in all directions.

The R:TW tactical AI is *appalling*. Humans frequently defeat the AI on Emperor with 10-1 odds. I've never lost a battle unless the odds reach 8-1. Yeah, let's have AI like that! The R:TW challenge is strategic, as the tactical side is so laughably easy.

The R:TW tactical AI is *appalling*. Humans frequently defeat the AI on Emperor with 10-1 odds. I've never lost a battle unless the odds reach 8-1. Yeah, let's have AI like that! The R:TW challenge is strategic, as the tactical side is so laughably easy.

Exactly what I was trying to get across...Just look at Homeworld 2, the AI needs about 4x as many ships as you to pose any kind of serious threat in campaign mode. (However it goes with the plot of Homeworld nicely as its a game about triumphing over a seemingly overwhelming enemy armada) The ability to fight tactically does put an AI at a massive disadvantage because it just isn't as inventive as a human can be...it understands build big ships...send big ships towards enemy...kill enemy, but you start throwing things like first strike and carriers and stealth into the mix and I bet you'll get problems arrising pretty damn quickly.

I'd maybe like to see some simple options maybe hit and run, one shot and out of system if your ships are fast enough (maybe you get away with but theres a chance you don't dependant on speed and sensors difference of ships). Or fight to X points and retreat or at least try to, again on chance dependant on speed and relative sensors on ships. Or plain stand and tow it out.

Having said that I do quite like the idea of using small, fast ships with a lot of sensors to fight a guerilla war against a superior military opponent...it would be even nicer if the AI could recognise when it was on the ropes and adapt its ship design accordingly... Good call stodge

The R:TW tactical AI is *appalling*. Humans frequently defeat the AI on Emperor with 10-1 odds. I've never lost a battle unless the odds reach 8-1. Yeah, let's have AI like that! The R:TW challenge is strategic, as the tactical side is so laughably easy.

Emperor thats not a setting have you even played RTW? The setting are very easy-very hard.
I voted for tactical battle becuase it would add alot more depth to the game. Imagine your shiny new fleet of ships you just designed dukeing it out against the enemy. But I would only like Tac batttles IF the AI can handle it and its good quality not just a click fest. (by the way more politics and diplomacy would be nice too .

O and like i said in another post It would attract alot of new players to Gal Civ giving the game a better financial footing in the future.

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

I however am not, this isn't a mud and the points brought up by you and others are pretty legit, what fun is it when the losing folks do not play out the scenerio and your left frustrated at the mop up of rebel bands of units that are no longer under anyones control.

Where did espionage fit in?

W/R
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord @ Large

political machine ended up being pretty shallow in gameplay but it was an interesting concept. Kept me playing for about 10 hours. Which I'm sure was more then most.

tactical battles would be very nice to have...sometimes. other times i'm not sure i could be bothered. in fact i already get to the point where i just hit 'done' during the combat view just to get it over with. so hopefully if stardock implements tactical battles at some point, they'd also add the option to turn them off.

that being said, i would think their time would be put to better use by addressing all of the other issues raised in various posts (political depth, a much improved diplomatic experience, espionage, races, etc, etc).

i am glad to see, however, that multiplayer didn't top the list. that was my fear when i first saw the poll.

I voted for Politics. I would like to see political random events, similar to the ethical ones we have already. For example:

A picture of Netro Mancer looking angry appears on the screen. The message says "Altarian trade vessels have been attacked by rogue [Terran] vessels. What is your response?". The choices are:

a) Compensate the Altarians for the lost ships and goods, and hunt down the pirates. (-200bc, +++relations)
Hunt down the pirates, and turn over the goods to the Altarians. (-50bc,+relations)
c) Find the pirates and offer to overlook their activities for a cut. (+100bc, --relations)

That kind of thing...

I voted for polotics. I'd love tactical battles if they included transporters/ship takeover.
Everyting on that list would be great though.

Espionage wasn't on the list, but that's what I want the most.