Needs more Depth

Which games are you comparing it to in this respect?

I can agree with some of what you pointed out, but without citing specific examples or solutions, you come across as 'whiney'.

The UP does need work; Players need to be able to interact more during the year with the other civs to see if we can get *our* agendas to the table, not just random ones. It would also be nice if a month or so before the actual annual meeting the agenda were set and players could use the diplomacy screen to try and bribe ... err, sway... others to vote the way the player would like. could make for some interesting backstabbing situations: imagine gifting half a trillion credits and 2 high level techs to get the Civ to "play ball" and they turn around and vote against you!
Diplomacy is another area that needs fixing. In addition to the points above, there are a lot of other things that diplomacy should be able to do. and the internal workings need some love too, I hate it when some civ declares war and you start 'liberating' their worlds and, to save time, you offer them a peace treaty if they will give you this planet or that. They refuse, so you go ahead and take it anyway, in the process destroying several more of their ships while they drag they war on in fruitless arrogance and pride?

The good news? You may not have to wait until GCIII for changes to these areas, since the Expansion pack is supposed to give these areas a facelift.

Cheers,
Reaver

I agree with the OP. Frogboy really deserves much credit about the AI , but it will get you only so far if the game is limited in other areas. In this case the diplomacy/politics.

As reaver said, the diplomacy/politics part of the game will get some loving in expansion pack, how much is yet to be seen. But atleast there is hope

So, are there games not lacking in these areas? It's easy to say I want, I want, but without a practical comparison, it's just asking for the moon. Personally, I don't see the game particularly lacking in these areas. But then again, GC2 is the first 4x game I've played. Sure, there's always room for improvement, but I want a a 32" flat panel TV for $500 and a car that gets 100 MPG. I want those things, but it's just not realistic to expect to see them right now. Probably in the future. The same can be said for Galactic Civilizations.

I think the thing that makes it so limiting is the fact that most of my games end way before 2240 (even with tech trading off). The main reason for this is the fact that once the AI allies itself with something, they never break it off or cancel alliances. If there was more dynamics to alliances (trying to keep your allies pleased with money for example). Right now I just Ally with those who are friendly with me and eventually it turns into me and 3 other civs fighting the rest of the galaxy. I like Civ4's ability to make me have to care if my allies are going to break the alliance and I have to worry about keeping them happy.

For instance if I'm a speck and my Ally has the largest military, I should have to keep paying him tribute for protection or he breaks the alliance (why protect a smaller undeveloped civ) or if I'm allied to their worst enemy, they decided to call off the alliance with me.

If alliances are expanded then my games will definatlly last up to epic status.

i agree that diplomacy needs to be worked on, but as for micro management, it has alot. deciding what you are going to build where, making sure that your planets don't have horrible approval ratings, where to focus production, things like that. one diplomatic thing ive wanted is the ability to say, hi, i want this planet and that planet, orrrrr ill rip out your guts.

I just want more cloak and dagger stuff to do, more backstabbing, more AI standing by moral ethics (like more protection for minor races). One thing that bothers me is that good friends will go to war because one side is already getting completely destroyed so the other powerful force in the galaxy comes in to mop up (instead of protect their friend even if it's a minor race).

Also does anyone know if there's another way to declare war other then moving into enemy ships?

I think it would be cool if the AI players would recognize if you saved them from an enemy attack. For instance if a transport was headed towards a colony of theirs that was undefended and you intercepted it, they could thank you somehow. Even if it's just a pat on the back, it would make me feel as if my friend appreciates the fact I just saved them. Same thing could work with marauding fleets that are in their territory. How much they thank you could be based on the size and attack values of the ships involved (saving them from Drengin battleships would count for more than picking of a raiding scout). just a thought...

Actually, last I checked, there are games that don't lack in the areas criticized. Of course, they're RPGs or sims, not strategy games. Strategy games traditionally lack in those areas.

As for micromanagement: If there's not enough, you're doing it wrong. Anyone can build a warfleet of battleplates and take out a group of fighters. Not anyone can balance three types of battlecruisers in a single fleet to make it capable of taking on multiple types of challenges. Plus, managing to maintain a green level of happiness on all colonies while having them all productive can take micromanagement as well. Really, this game is as challenging as you want it to be. If you are having trouble with a lack of micromanagement, that's your fault.

Ok first i want to say this JakeCourtney you are the most backwordsls jade gamer I have ever had the misfortune to know. Halo spent too much time on graphics and not enough on detail. Gal civ sepent 90% of its time on detail and not on graphics. There are improvements to be made here and there but it is the most detailed game I have ever played consedering the diplomacy and micro mangement. So Jake go and find the right games to critize and dont come here to say Gal Civ needs more "Detail".

Ok first i want to say this JakeCourtney you are the most backwordsls jade gamer I have ever had the misfortune to know. Halo spent too much time on graphics and not enough on detail. Gal civ sepent 90% of its time on detail and not on graphics. There are improvements to be made here and there but it is the most detailed game I have ever played consedering the diplomacy and micro mangement. So Jake go and find the right games to critize and dont come here to say Gal Civ needs more "Detail".

Not anyone can balance three types of battlecruisers in a single fleet to make it capable of taking on multiple types of challenges.

Since 1.1 have never needed that...since all the AIs normally use the same weapons...by the way that get even worse with very slow tech speed...
In my current game there is already invunerability field developed and the ai uese still plasma guns...meaning a large ships has normal about 50 Shield defense and 10 beam offense...I'am the only one using missiles, beside the drengin who used mass drivers (but them I have obliterated, as they didn't stop to declare war on me)...

To me it is foolish to say "why does this game have to be better if none other is?". GC2 has good thing going for it, I just hope they recognize that diplomacy/politics part of the game is really shallow.

So the obvious guestion is, why not try to make the game better if there is a chance?

Name another sci-fi game that has more depth then GC2?

It has huge amounts of depth, starbases (4 different kinds) change each game considerably.

Space ships, have any spacship out of any sci-fi program ever, just design it or download the design.

Diplomacy u can trade with anyone including minor races, manipulate the galaxy by bribing others to do the dirty work, fighting. U can be the shadowy presence behind the scenes that rules the galaxy. A war breaks out u can gift ships to the weaker side, creating a bloody stalemate well u grow stronger.

Random events that change the galaxy considerably like the assination event which can break an alliance, the event that changes a races alignment, for example the Yor became good guys in a game I played recently.

Sure any game can be improved on, but GC2 lacking depth, I don't think so.

Ok, I am not agreeing with the statement that GC2 lacks depth - I believe it has good depth in the main 4 areas that a space strategy needs. However, there are other games out there that I believe have more depth in certain areas. Space Empires 4 for example, I believe has superior technology levels and the shipbuilding options (although not as aesthetically (spelling) pleaseing has more options and therefore strategy and depth. I think the colony bulding in SE4 is also superior.

I currently alternate my play time between GC2 and SE4, as they offer different enjyoment areas. But with SE5 and Dark Avatar due out later this year, I think both games are evoloving and adding more depth as they go. Looking forward to both releases!

To me it is foolish to say "why does this game have to be better if none other is?".

I see what you mean, but there are realistic expectations and unrealistic ones...

Well, actually, this one has far more depth than most strategy games. In most, diplomacy amounts to "they can negotiate it out with their chosen deity."

Since 1.1 have never needed that...since all the AIs normally use the same weapons...by the way that get even worse with very slow tech speed...

Neither have I. Not needing it doesn't mean that you still shouldn't try it. It's an interesting challenge.

I agree with Woozy...SE4 is vastly better in most areas, but GC2 in others. We can rest assured that the SD team will eventually take the best of SE4 (5 coming soon) and implement it in GC2 (like multiplayer for instance). It is that, or consigning GC2 to the dustbin of gaming history unfortunately, (no matter how cool the ship building in GC2 is).

Galciv2 has depth, in the simple chess type of way.

There are some of us who feel multiplayer is actually a bad thing. Why? Because then they have to focus all of their attention on multiplayer for awhile and the main game ends up falling further and further behind. The game is balanced for single player. The moment they start with multiplayer, they start having to rework core mechanics that have worked well for single player to make it work. For Blizzard, such of an item has proven to be an ongoing nightmare (they actually gave up on it with Diablo 2 and are still trying to get Warcraft 3 and World of Warcraft right).