So what features in sequels?

Poll results..

from GalCiv2 Forums

We won't be doing any sequels to Galactic Civilizations II for a long time still.  But we were interested in getting an idea of what people would want us to focus on in a sequel. Some features that have been requested weren't listed because we plan to add them into the expansion pack instead.

Based on the thousands of players who responded, tactical battles are something people want.  This is something we would definitely look at seriously in a sequel (not an expansion).  The problem with tactical battles in a game that would be played mostly single player (assuming we put multiplayer into a sequel) is that you don't want to force players (like me) who would rarely if ever fight out a tactical battle to have to use it. When people like me play HOMM or MOO or RTW we largely hit auto and let the battles just go.  So you want to create a mechanism in which players can play out the tactical battles if they choose to but that the AI is good enough that the results would be very similar to if you had hit the auto on it.  That means a lot of computer AI work.  And Galactic Civilizations has always taken computer AI very seriously.

Another feature that was surprising to see so high was more diplomacy. The expansion pack will have more diplomacy but clearly future versions of the game should take a fresh approach to it so that you can do a lot more in that realm.  Similarly, politics scored very well and by that we meant domestic politics.  We've always wanted players to have to deal with a cabinet and have more political party elements to deal with.  In "real life" leaders of civilizations don't get to act in a vacuum. They have to deal with domestic pressures as well.  You may want to conquer those Torians but your ability to do so might be hindered by domestic issues (or intergalactic ones as well).  So that is an area I could see us greatly expand on in the future.

Another feature that some people wanted (that I want too) is the concept of heroes.  I have a pretty good outline of the features I'd like to see in the game. The leader of a civilization should have generals who give bonuses to planets and fleets and such and that's an area we'd like to see expanded.

One feature that didn't get as much support as anticipated was multiplayer.  Only 8.6% of players listed multiplayer as the feature they'd like to see the most.  Some people have argued that we're "against multiplayer. That's not the case.  Galactic Civilizations is the only game series we've made that isn't multiplayer.  One of our upcoming game projects, The Political Machine 2008, will be multiplayer.  We've just (correctly I think) viewed that the cost to implement multiplayer versus how many people really want it don't match up.  The main benefit to multiplayer is purely for game reviews. That's pretty much the only justification we have for it -- to bump up our review scores in a sequel (don't get me wrong, we're happy with the 4.5 out of  5 average we have with Galactic Civilizations II!).

Another feature is more complex ship design which was only 7 votes behind multiplayer. Right now, players put engines and weapons and defenses on their ships along with some modules. But you can imagine other kinds of things a ship might have -- targeting computers, target disrupting devices, maneuvering thrusters, mines, breech pods, cloaking, etc.  Not to mention the cosmetic aspects.  When we did the ship design features in Galactic Civilizations II, we had no idea how popular they'd become. I don't think anybody did.  I suspect looking space-strategy games in the future will have the kind of LEGO-like ship design features we have in GalCiv II where ship design involves what the ship looks like at a fundamental level.

So some good feedback there.  No sequels any time soon, but we do have some expansion packs that have some features that I think you'll be excited about.  My favorite feature in the expansion pack hasn't been announced yet but the idea came from Lockdown from CivFanatics.com.  I'll be talking about it over on the GalCiv II forum over there first.

Now back to working on the next version of the game. ;)

44,765 views 74 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I wasn't surprised to learn that tactical battles were the most desired feature; with tactical battles added, Galciv II would be challenging the last bastions of MOO2- it has already beaten it in every area except for tactical battles and more complex ship design. This brings up a point- I don't think that I'm the only one who wants both tactical battles and more advanced ship design, but if only allowed to choose one would choose the tactical battles.

If more advanced ship design was implemented in a future expansion pack alongside tactical battles, Galciv could finally surpass MOO2 in every way possible. By more advanced ship design, I am reffering to things like heavy variants of weapons (which would take up a bit more room and cost a lot more, but would gain a damage bonus; they should also be limited to medium hulls and larger, with a greatly reduced chance to hit against smaller ships), light variants (which should do less damage, take up less room, and have a higher chance to hit against anything), targeting computers, and assorted other equipment. The visual ship design is already excellent, and the three types of attack/defense forces good design, but who could resist adding a cloaking device that allows you to get a free hit at the start of a battle or move undetectd across tha galactic map (at massive monetary and space cost, of course). I'm sure that there is no shortage of ideas in this area.

Also, I have to say that if tactical battles are implemented in the future, they cannot be real time. I have played many games that have claimed to be both, and they are usually neither (the X-Com clones and MOO3 come to mind). They are always too fast paced to think, and the system of pausing every time something doesn't have any orders that seems so popular now is simply a less streamlined version of turn based battles that lacks both the action of real time and the though of turn based. If these battles are turn based, they could require just as much though and careful planning as the rest of the game, while providing the control over battles that people want so badly.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would second the spirit of the first comment poster above, but am posting primarily out of appreciation for the lengths this development team has gone to give its audience exactly what we want. Thank you.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think an interesting concept to add to combat is adding powerplants/batteries to starships. All ships enter combat at full power, but as weapons fire it uses up the stored energy. Shields would require energy to power, while armor requires none. The powerplants would replenish the energy up to the max capacity a battery can hold. Weapons would have different recharge rates, and would fire when charged.

An advantage to shields vs armor is that shields can regenerate during battle, while armor cannot. point defense would expend energy as needed to intercept incoming missles.

When damage has exceeded shields, then dmg is allocated to armor. The more damage the armor has taken, then the more likely damage will penetrate to the ship's components.

While it still doesn't give players the ability to maneuver tactically around the battlefield, I think this might add an interesting complexity and flavor to combat in the game.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One feature that didn't get as much support as anticipated was multiplayer. Only 8.6% of players listed multiplayer as the feature they'd like to see the most.

As mentioned before... this games website is for a singleplayer game which means many multiplayer gamers did not purchase the game and will not be voting in your polls. Multiplayer gamers.... your potential untapped market will not be visiting game websites for singleplayer games. Your polls are only pulling data from your existing singleplayer gamers.


We've just (correctly I think) viewed that the cost to implement multiplayer versus how many people really want it don't match up.

Same response as above... your POLLS are within a singleplayer game forum. It's the same as walking into a symphony and asking everyone seated who wants to buy baseball tickets. Since you are only gathering data from existing customers instead of all potential customers... this poll is not accurate.


The main benefit to multiplayer is purely for game reviews. That's pretty much the only justification we have for it -- to bump up our review scores in a sequel (don't get me wrong, we're happy with the 4.5 out of 5 average we have with Galactic Civilizations II!).

The previous poll showed 33% of your singleplayer gaming community willing to pay for multiplayer. Thus they all would disagree with you. If multiplayer is only a benefit of game reviews then your team needs to play more multiplayer games to understand the replay value which is added with this feature. Even singleplayer gamers would have increased replay value by being able to play two nations at the same time allowing them to experience the harder difficulty settings.


Some people have argued that we're "against multiplayer. That's not the case. Galactic Civilizations is the only game series we've made that isn't multiplayer.

That's not the case... however the current Stardock team gathering data has only placed POLLS within this singleplayer fishbowl of existing customers instead of gathering data from new potential customers outside the singleplayer fishbowl. That's almost as bad as going to a democratic rally and hosting a poll to determine the current opinion of a republican president or vise versa.

Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As mentioned before... this games website is for a singleplayer game which means those that play multiplayer did not purchase the game and will not be voting in your polls. Multiplayer gamers.... your potential untapped market will not be visiting game websites for singleplayer games. Your polls are only pulling data from your existing singleplayer gamers.


Regardless of whatever untapped market exists, I think that the point of the poll was to determine whether the existing market for GalCiv2 would prefer to pay for multiplayer in the next game or something else. I'm sure they've got all kinds of numbers and statistics for how many most customers who would come to the game just for the multiplayer (if they even choose to add it). From what I've read on this site and elsewhere, GalCiv2 has established a strong user base already and the cost of developing a multiplayer at this point is greater than the estimated benefit, considering so many of the existing fans don't care.

I, personally, would prefer they put their money elsewhere. I feel that in the instance of Civ4, too much money was spent on multiplayer (which I almost never use) that could have been put towards other aspects the game.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Very much agree. I've been playing these games since alpha centauri (man that was a cool game!) and i've never managed to have one single successful multiplayer game

I'd also like to add that multiplayer might SEEM attractive, but the reality is that even in faster paced games like Homeworld 2, its difficult to find an opponent willing or able to sit there with you for the entire length of time required to play a game, and generally such games end up in rush strategies, making a 4X game into a 1X game. that takes a TON out of the game's offering, so in summary, multiplayer is pretty well worthless.

Now, tactical battles.

I would like to see a little more attention devoted to ochestrating fleet battles. even a simple difference in movement for different hull types would be great (big ships lumber, fighters swoop, and non-combatants flee), and a pilot cam to top it off
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
To the developers:

Hi, I saw this game while watching X-Play on G4 channel and I was in awe of it because of the anticipation of waiting so long for a sequel worthy to master of orion 2...needless to say i can't give a hoot-n-hanny about version 3 it royally sucked!! However since playing this I've given another chance into the schemes and aspects of space games, finally they got it right to the most part there is only a couple things I would like to ask to see better created on the game as i will list them----

1. In the game menus especially when you highlight or click on a custom map in the begining of the game it needs to explain what it is or if you click on the chaos map, that it would give a definition to the right side menu in the begining etc.. because I am left to darkness of what that map even means or what it looks like.

2. The game needs a better technology map, as it works well but i can hardly make out what needs to go next( like understanding better of why I need to have a phasor 1, 2 and 3), I wish you had it built like civilization 4, or at least make it its own screen big enough to look through it from end to begining easier.

3. After the setup has begun when you name your homeworld it names it your "Star" also. Please let us change the name of the "star" also or make it so it only names the planet!

4. Please make some better technologies especially where you can have like a atmosphere processing unit or something to be able to land on any planet to colonize it that is a 0, this is the future almost anything should be possible!

5. When i do the planetary assault you should be able to keep blasting from space with your ships to pulverize the planet below, then when you want to attack there needs to be a understanding better of what your techniques of invasion mean, because you never see a tidal wave or your mass drivers smack the planet or maybe even a doom ray to completely destroy the planet!!?? Man that would be awesome. I understand the vs. thing but I would like to see you implemente the stuff i said above.

6. Please let the planets be able to create a flux door kind of like a star gate that i can travel to planets faster also because going from ion drive to hyper warp isnt always fast enough.

7. Please let the espianoge stuff be better explained because it doesnt always work to the extent that i propose you made it for..the ai never really cares that your investigating there empire and you never are able to tell your spies to destroy or steal technology if you know what i mean.

8. In the custom make-up for new character it always leaves on soldering +20 and logistics +6 and loyalty + 25 you can click them off but should they even be there to start with? Always wondered if this was a bug?

9. Please make it so in the future you should be able to build anything on a planet, I understand what your team was trying to limit the micro-managment of the game but i sucks when you can't build a planet defense on every planet or at least make it so you can build a starport everywhere that only makes sense to me...

10. Please make the scrolling speed a little bit faster instead of clicking the map and pulling i like to go screen to screen, and you do have it but it can be a bit slow at times....

PS I know this is a lot of info for your team but you guys rock as i think so far this game is suited for some killer stuff for the future packs and developments....

Thanks again!! - Viithtrump
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Regardless of whatever untapped market exists, I think that the point of the poll was to determine whether the existing market for GalCiv2 would prefer to pay for multiplayer in the next game or something else.

If your gathering a poll which does not include all potential customers the poll is not accurate.


I'm sure they've got all kinds of numbers and statistics for how many most customers who would come to the game just for the multiplayer (if they even choose to add it).

If that was true the basic information would have been released... heaven knows we've heard everything else.


From what I've read on this site and elsewhere, GalCiv2 has established a strong user base already and the cost of developing a multiplayer at this point is greater than the estimated benefit, considering so many of the existing fans don't care.

If you weren't aware a basic funky Hotseat already works within the game with bad side effects. Thus to make HOTSEAT fully operational would take very little effort. The issue here is that Stardock has chosen if Multiplayer functionality will be added it's an all or nothing package. So instead of adding the Hotseat and PBEM functionality which is 1.5 slots, the multiplayer expansion would have to be Hotseat, PBEM, LAN, Online, Multiplayer game balance, Multiplayer game chat, Multiplayer cheat prevention, etc. which is 4 out of 5 developer slots.




I, personally, would prefer they put their money elsewhere. I feel that in the instance of Civ4, too much money was spent on multiplayer (which I almost never use) that could have been put towards other aspects the game.

In the case of the civilization series the developers learned from CIV_3 that multiplayer was in demand and thus released a multiplayer expansion. The expansion was such a success the developers knew to have multiplayer actively working within CIV_4. So it's not a matter of whether you, myself, or anyone we know prefers developers focus or ignore specific game features... it matters on what will bring the company the most customers which purchase the game from Stardock increasing the chance for sequels and expansion.

Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'd also like to add that multiplayer might SEEM attractive, but the reality is that even in faster paced games like Homeworld 2, its difficult to find an opponent willing or able to sit there with you for the entire length of time required to play a game, and generally such games end up in rush strategies, making a 4X into a 1X game.

Many TBS games have multiplayer and take very long to finish yet are still successful. Games such as AgeofWonders:SM and Dominions_3 are examples where a single game can last months and it's great fun. And I've played many TBS games with family and friends and never experienced rush strategies having me believe your experiences have been only online or one vs one setup... online multiplayer with strangers is not a good place to start. No rush strategy if the other human player is on your side against the AI opponents. Human players against the AI opponents is one of my favorite ways to play TBS games.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It sounds to me that people just want Master of Orion 2.5.
Space civ with tactical combat, heroes and the option of multiplayer (if that's what turns you on).

At the moment the battles just look like bouncing ship screen savers and that doesn't pass muster, not for me. Bring on the tactical battles.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Conclusions I draw:

Tactical battles is what the majority of the playerbase wants, but it also a feature a large portion doesn't want.

The MP wishers are small, but fanatical. If a cheap MP could be done, it would still sell well.

Complex ship design might have been misinterpreted- as I though it meant more jewelry, not the other things. I want Funny Car type ships...

Overall, if I was to prioritze the features, I'd rate them as follows

1) Politics
2) The Ship Design as listed here
3) MP...

Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
For the love of God don't start to spin this poll into a reason not to include MP in GaCiv3.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I feel that it would be something of a mistake to view the results of the poll representative of all players of the game, let alone all *potential* players of the game.

This is mostly only a subset of that whole, showing simply what 'Players of the Game who also visit the website' want.

Those primarily interested in MP aspects have likely been turned off by the game already. I was. I heard whispers of potential MP talk around the place for GalCiv2, and that perked my interest levels right back up there again.

Don't get me wrong though, I have the utmost respect for the Stardock dev's, for their philosophies, as well as sheer skill. Whether or not a MP xpac becomes a reality, I wish them the best, and will await avidly GalCivIII if that is what it takes.

But I think that an optional MP xpac would do the game a lot of good. It would replace the game on the front page of a lot of game network sites, and give a fairly major new rush of purchases.


That said though, I too want tactical battles, and Heroes. The other bits are nice too, but MP, Tac Battles, Heroes are my top 3 wants, in that order, with a distinct lag between two and three from one.

In any event, take care all,
-Nait,.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think the ship technologies and design in MOO2, and the tactical battles that let you play with your creations are the reason that MOO2 still has a place on my hard drive after so many years. Galciv2 has its own personality, and I don't know if said features would be a good fit for it, but I also don't think that there are any other features that would entice me into buying a sequel or even an expansion pack.

Multiplayer certainly isn't worth $0.02 to me personally. I already get my fill of teenagers every time I log into WoW.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You should have a poll that lets more then one option to be checked, I wanted to choose three or four of the options but I voted MP. When the first MP poll was released, 33% of the votes were for yes, in this one only 8% were. A check box vote would allow for a better understanding of what the players want. As for MP, a hot seat mode would be easy to add and good enough to satisfy the MP advocates.

I hope this post goes through, I've been having problems posting on the boards.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'd like to see most of the features from the poll implemented in a future expansion or sequel [ and a few that weren't up for a vote such as the option for expanded participation from the minors ]. Some of these I probably wouldn't have much use for but all the choices have their supporters. I've always been a tactical combat proponent and thus was happy with the poll results. I also believe that if Stardock put their heart and soul into coding a tactical AI they would create one quite worthy of the franchise.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
All I want is more advance diplomacy. Something more than "Here some money and shiny new toys, now give me what I want." Things like fighting (with words and treaties, not star ships) for better trade agreements, have advance territorial agreements (think the dividing up of Africa back in the Imperial era), cosequnces of said agreements later down the line when minor races don't become so minor, and probably many other things I can't think of right now (just got out of work ) Like Otto Von Bismarck said "I consider even a victorious war as an evil, from which statesmanship must endeavor to spare nations", or at least something to that effect.

I really can't see the need for real time battles in a turn base game. Its madness I tell you. Closest thing I've played to that is in Empires at War on the Galatic conquest mode, and on that I usually skipped the tatical battles unless losing that battle would have very dire consequences to my war effort.

Also I can't see myself playing multiplayer on a turn base game, far to time consuming. I can hardly get any RTS multiplayer games into my gaming schedule, no way I'm going to get something like this game in/ Also it gets really annoying when people start dropping from the game at the first defeat. I'm sure there are strategy junkies out there who have hours to kill on a game, but I've trouble seeing them in the majority. At best I can get in 5 hours on a weekday, and about 7 on a weekend if I've no overtime. Best to leave multiplayer to quicker pace games.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As someone who's never played MoO2 (I jumped in from the Civ series), I'd like a better idea of what is meant by 'tactical battles'. The only thing in my experience is something ala Final Fantasy Tactics or Disgaea, and I can't imagine stopping and doing one of these kinds of battles every time I meet enemy ships somewhere. Anyone care to fill me in??

I voted for 'diplomacy', but it was a tough call between that and 'complex ship design'. I think I might have voted for 'tactical battles ' if I had had a better idea of what that implies.

The MP wishers are small, but fanatical. If a cheap MP could be done, it would still sell well.


Here here.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm all for tactical battles and more advanced ship design (which would of course neccesitate a better tech tree as well), but frankly, I think your idea of having similar outcomes whether you fight the tacitcal battles or let the computer fight them is unrealistic. The whole "point" of having tactical battles is putting it in a human's hands; giving you that chance to use skill and ingenuity to take your crappy little ship and destroy the gigantic capital ship hovering above you. I think MoO2 accomplished this really well, as even though you always had an advantage fighting the battles yourself, the computer AI was still pretty competent. I also think that if you skip the battle entirely, it should just be calculated based on stats and a random roll, not on some advanced AI which will completely invalidate the whole point of having tactical battles in the first place.

Look at it this way; you don't want it to be so that if the player chooses to fight the tactical battle, he has to be perfect just to keep up with the computer, you want the player to be rewarded for choosing to do the down and dirty work, and have the ability to outsmart his digitally created enemy in tactics.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I like te game very much, and would like to see more ship components, diversity of shield, armor and point defense VS beam, mass drivers and rockets... I would also like to see hero governers with bonuses, hero generals with bonuses, captains of capital ships (like captain Picard)... Most of all, I would like to be able to say the AI to kiss my armpit or something like that; it would all add to my singleplayer expirience... currently, I finished HOMM5 campaigns and returned to galciv2, but, when my friend come over to my house, we play hotseat HOMM5 just because galciv2 doesn't have it...
We never play homm5 over internet, only hotseat! Galciv2 hotseat could be the first not-so-hard step for multiplayer!
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
oh, and I agree with DrSpock; in homm5 I have auto-combat turned on, but if I see that I've lost too much, I hit "REPLAY" and play it out manualy, and in 90% of cases, I'm better than AI, and I realy have that as a reward, and get the smile on my face when I beat stronger oponent!
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I voted for (OTHER) because I would like to see more special unexpected events/missions such as on the game Imperium Galactica II where you might have to rescue a dying civilization from their dying star in their system and relocate them, have mercenary fleet admirals willing to fight for you for a price, being able to recuit a general that adds points to your attack or defence ability, or having to stop a plague. Other than this I would like to see more diplomatic scenarios and political intrigue.

I too believe that the Tactical Combat would need to be turn based and I would like to see a more in depth planetary assault. Instead of the Imperial age type were you stand at 30 paces and exchange shots at each other in strait lines.

Don't get me wrong the game is GREAT and I have not had this much fun with a computer game in a long time. Good job Developers!
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Similarly, politics scored very well and by that we meant domestic politics. We've always wanted players to have to deal with a cabinet and have more political party elements to deal with. In "real life" leaders of civilizations don't get to act in a vacuum. They have to deal with domestic pressures as well. You may want to conquer those Torians but your ability to do so might be hindered by domestic issues (or intergalactic ones as well).


In other words more like Pointless Waste of Time's proposed "Ultimate War Sim." Link (I think you'd really like that link, Brad.)

NTJedi's first post in this thread is just such high quality. And the idea of playing two seats in a hotseat game yourself is just awesome!
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
NTJedi:
If you weren't aware a basic funky Hotseat already works within the game with bad side effects.

Using a debug cheat to change between the races every turn, which has the side effect that only the race that started the turn can move his ships, is not what I would call basic Hotseat functionality. Not to mention that when you end the turn with one race, the AI probably do stuff with all of the other races.
Saying that it would take little effort to add real Hotseat, doesn't neccesarily make it so.
Even though I would like to see it too.
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If your gathering a poll which does not include all potential customers the poll is not accurate.


Which is exactly why the poll shouldn't be on other websites. There are many SP gamers who do not spend a lot of time online. There are lots of people who don't have internet access at all. Any online poll outside of this site would unfairly skew the results in favour of MP gamers.