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.

I'm not arguing with that AT ALL. What I took issue with is that you said, "you are already playing a turn based combat game, takt is just taking it to the next level! grip get a..." , which is inaccurate.

Either way; GCII will NEVER HAVE tactical combat. GC III may have tactical, but I'll never buy another MOO2-style trun-based tactical combat game.

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.

If those twenty something battles were really enjoyable and you had to utilise more of your brain cells to win them, it would hardly be a 'snoozefest'. The combat systems as it stands today is not great. It is simply a case of moving ships to attack and watching what happens. Tak would be the next evolutionary step, would empower us as players. Have faith in stardock, the product they deliver will not put you to sleep.

Too bad they did their job too well in convincing everyone MP is useless and so "Evil won" and not enough people wanted MP.

It did indeed and does so too often. In the community at the moment there are too many people who are willing to bash any new or revolutionary idea, call it resistance to change - something which every society has to deal with - or just plain pigheadedness, whatever. Its not right, change is good. new features are good.

I don't think hereos would add much to the game, i just can't see it really

Hmmm...how about this for an implementation of heroes then:

Everytime you create a fleet you get a fleet admiral and get to name him, give him an insignia etc. Now everytime he has a battle and wins he gets points, win enough battles and he gets new skills such as fire twice or extreme defence or increased chance of a critical or increased whatever... the list is endless, but these would be the real prizes. This would bring us closer to the action. Those fleets would mean more to us. what do you reckon?

Tak combat RULES!!!

It does indeed.

FROOKIE: I like this:

Everytime you create a fleet you get a fleet admiral and get to name him, give him an insignia etc. Now everytime he has a battle and wins he gets points, win enough battles and he gets new skills such as fire twice or extreme defence or increased chance of a critical or increased whatever... the list is endless, but these would be the real prizes. This would bring us closer to the action. Those fleets would mean more to us. what do you reckon?

kinda like Civ III, from what I can remember of it. You would have a chance in any battle for a general to become a Hero, which gave other benefits.

I also kinda liked the MOO2 hero thing which would give shpiwide or fleetwide bonuses.

It did indeed and does so too often. In the community at the moment there are too many people who are willing to bash any new or revolutionary idea, call it resistance to change - something which every society has to deal with - or just plain pigheadedness, whatever. Its not right, change is good. new features are good.

Pardon me, but tactical combat is hardly "new" or "revolutionary". It's fanboyism at it peak really, saying Galciv is perfect as it is, it can't benefit from any major changes. If Galciv2 shipped with TC, I would bet a number of "I hate TC" camp would be singing its praises.


That said, I am of two minds about TC, particularly Moo style chess like TC. It is true , that it does get old at times, and I just autoresolve (I manually control at the start of the game and for bigger critical combats), and also it is true that I can usually do better if I have manual control (in some situations autoresolve algo actually gives you better chances if you understand how it calculates results!).

But so what? That goes for any aspect of the game. I can do a lot better, if I micromanage all the colonies and change the spending sliders each turn, but I don't , it's too redious and I don't really want to spend all my time doing it, I'm a galactic emperor not some economic minister heck. Some of you might, so good for you. But you don't see me complaining about the colony management system that allows people to change tax spending policies turn from turn.

It's the same thing with just picking autoresolve each time. You want to play high level emperor, then ignore TC and leave it to the drones...