Have two suggestions

from GalCiv2 Forums
I have two suggestions that may be useful or not.

The first is for a Carrier ship. I would like to be able to build a "carrier" class ship and load it with tiny ships, (that may or may not have interstellar drives) that can be launched from the carrier during battle. If the carrier were to be lost in an attack on the enemy then the tiny "fighters" would be doomed if they didn't have a drive. This would also boost the combat ability of a fleet. A "carrier" ship with the latest drive tech could carry tiny ships that may not be worth upgrading to the latest drive tech, (or not even have a drive, leaving space for more punching power) and help in a battle. Maybe there could be ship components that can store certain amounts of "tiny" hull ships and the more research is done on them the bigger the storage copacity. They could be put only on the two largest ship hulls. Or an even simplar thing would be that if a ship has this "launching bay" component a certain amount of tiny ships can be put in the same fleet as the "carrier" and automatically have the same speed as the "carrier" while traveling.

The other suggestion probably makes more sense. Have a cloaking tech that can hide ships from sensors on the map. The higher the sensor tech, (mark I II III...) The better chance of detecting a cloaked ship or a fleet for that game turn. I think it would be great if an enemy fleet showed up suddenly and I said "Crap!" Battle would commence as it does now because they have to uncloak to fight. But the enemy's fleet may not show up on the map until I am suddenly at battle with it. Or if the enemy is suddenly at battle with me. Cloaked transports could invade undefended worlds. It would also add more, (maybe unwanted excitement), To have scouts on the boarders and detect a fleet of enemy ships within your empire only to have it disappear the next turn.

Maybe somone else has better ideas for these suggestions than I have tried to explain. Could these be possible in updates in the future? Or are they silly?
11,535 views 15 replies
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
So what did you think about the other suggestion on cloaking tech? Did you even bother to read my post?
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This isn't original, just so you know. Carriers get thrown up constantly, hence the links. Cloaking not as much. Also, carriers might be in GC3, with tactical combat. For no, the system will stay as it is, because I doubt Stardock will want to recode the battle AI.

But just so you know, cloaking was in the original. Now it is not. Because it was not fun. The end.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You people don't seem to be reading what I posted. I said the battle system would remain the same. It would just be hard or not, (depending on your sensor tech) to see a cloaked fleet comming. Once it engages your fleet it goes directly to a NORMAL battle.

"Battle would commence as it does now because they have to uncloak to fight. But the enemy's fleet may not show up on the map until I am suddenly at battle with it. Or if the enemy is suddenly at battle with me."
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This isn't original, just so you know.


I do know. That's why I EXPLAINED how they might work.

But just so you know, cloaking was in the original. Now it is not. Because it was not fun. The end.


You don't need to get offended. I'm not saying the game is bad because it doesn't have these things. I'm saying, in my opinion, that it would improve the game. And I have GalCiv and I was a beta tester, (like a bunch of other people) for GalCiv2 before it went on sale.

NOTICE: I said "in my opinion"

I just want to make it clear it is my opinion so you don't act like a bunch of English citizens who lost a certain trivial sports match. You know, rioting.

Now if you want to be offended feel free.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well, take it as the majority opinion that carriers aren't fun, add nothing, and are a waste. I read your post, and I see absolutely nothing worth adding in carriers. You want ships to move, give them engines!

All I know for cloaking is that it did work roughly like you said (I'm talking the os/2 version here, the actual original) and it got removed for the AI building stealth ships and ganking the player.

Actually, we need a carrier vote. Just to prove the point.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually I was referring in my comment about beta testing to the fact that cloaking tech was there, for a tiny while.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually I was referring in my comment about beta testing to the fact that cloaking tech was there, for a tiny while.


Either way, it was removed for a reason. All hail the Devs, for their decision is code.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
one thing you have to keep in mind is every new thing you add, no matter how simple the feature is to implement, requires that the ai be modified to know when and how to use it. the core of the design philosopy for this project seems to be 'ai is a able to do EVERYTHING a player can'. it may now be able to do it with subtlety like a person can, but it CAN do it. that said, just these two small features would take a ton of work to implement. say 2 programmer/days to implement the features cleanly, and 2 programmer/months to squeese them into the ai in a ballanced way. not an easy sell. there are easy ways to implement both features, but it just complicates an already very complex ai disproportionate to the benefit they provide.

i would like to see a carrier implimented as a large ship component(say size 60) that allows the ship to share engine and support with the rest of the fleet(custom coding but pretty simple i think). i would also like to see cloaking implemented as 'countersensor' (additional check before sucessful detection consisting of distance/(sensor-cloak)<=1, not percentage), which would make it easy to ballance cloaking to sensor tech. but i will NOT ask for it because there are better ways for the SD crew to spend their time improving the game. maybe GalCiv3
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm about getting tired of hearing about how the game shouldnt get new features for fear of writing AI subroutines.

Sooner or later those damn dogs will have to learn some new tricks!
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I'm about getting tired of hearing about how the game shouldnt get new features for fear of writing AI subroutines.

Sooner or later those damn dogs will have to learn some new tricks!


yea, but neither of these ideas are good. Nor are they orginal.

Carriers as proposed by everyone are retarded and make huge class ships useless. And you would need to have tactical combat to inorder to decide weather or not to kill the carrier or its ships (if you think one is obviosly better then the other, there is no hope for you)

Cloaking is also a rather lame idea.
You want to get in undetectaded?
Build aship with alot of engines. Fly in fly out, undetectaded.
Seriosly if you have something to add to the carriers idea, add it to one of the other threads.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This isn't original, just so you know.


I do know. That's why I EXPLAINED how they might work.

But just so you know, cloaking was in the original. Now it is not. Because it was not fun. The end.


You don't need to get offended. I'm not saying the game is bad because it doesn't have these things. I'm saying, in my opinion, that it would improve the game. And I have GalCiv and I was a beta tester, (like a bunch of other people) for GalCiv2 before it went on sale.

NOTICE: I said "in my opinion"

I just want to make it clear it is my opinion so you don't act like a bunch of English citizens who lost a certain trivial sports match. You know, rioting.

Now if you want to be offended feel free.


your argument doesnt contradict what Marc. said, so i do not see what you trying to argue here.
He states that it isnt orginal... you go on a tangent... GG
He states its been tested, and it was kicked out...
you say it should be tried to see if it would make it better... yet it already has... gg
you then state it was there though for a little while... for a reason, it was no fun they took it out...gg
your arguments are very flawed, you argument is not object orianted so you constantly go off on tangents.
Object of this, to prove to you that you make no sense, and didnt contradict anything Marc. said. Purpose, to try to convince you to stop arguing till you learn how to.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I like the carrier idea, not necessarily for the carriers themselves, but rather because it gives you a reason to mix different ships in your fleet. As it stands now, my fleets are all made up of copies of the same ship to take advantage of having the same speed, etc. One fleet of all the same tiny class ship, one of all the same medium class ship, etc. Not terribly exciting.

Does anyone mix up the ships in their fleets at all?
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Does anyone mix up the ships in their fleets at all?


Lord no! Bigger hull = more engines. What good are tiny ships in an offensive force if their top speed is two Hyperwarp III's? Heck, they could fake carriers by simply putting in a special rule that lets Huge ships transfer their movement and life support values to any Tiny ships in the same fleet as them, but as it is smaller ships are useless because they don't have any room for guns & armor after you cram engines on them. I'm not sure it's even possible to put enough engines on a Tiny hull to make it keep up, not even as unarmed fodder. This might not be a problem on galaxies smaller than Huge, but since I don't play those galaxies, well...
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Jamming engines on ships is not a great approach unless you plan to retreat each time you see a fight and always go for victories other than military. Usually 1-2 decent engines is fine depending on the ship. The heavier the ship, the fewer the engines as it can withstand attacks on the way and it doesnt need to retreat as often. It also usually has improved sensor range to see attackers coming for it sooner.