Turn Based Combat?

Tactical combat is rumored to already be in consideration for GalCiv3, but the apparent verdict is that there's no time to bother with adding it to GalCiv2.

It's an age-old discussion really. Doing a search on the forums will bring up almost anything one could say to it.

Con - On larger maps combat can occur up to 10 times per round so it would just be a real pain in the behind.

Con - On larger maps combat can occur up to 10 times per round so it would just be a real pain in the behind.

... And just like with Master of Orion, there can be the option to disable it for any particular session, and let the AI determine the victory without rendering it.

exactly 8)

And just like with Master of Orion, there can be the option to disable it for any particular session, and let the AI determine the victory without rendering it.

Not the same: The human usually performs better than the AI, so you'd feel pressed to carry it out yourself.

Really, everything has been said already, just do a search.

Not the same: The human usually performs better than the AI, so you'd feel pressed to carry it out yourself. Really, everything has been said already, just do a search.

I don't doubt it's all been said. Also, I'm well aware of such preferences. I tend to prefer to have full control over the tactical battles in Master of Orion 2 - it's actually enjoyable, in my opinion. Master of Orion 3's combat seemed a bit too much - or even too little - to bother controlling directly, so I tended to just observe and let the AI manage it.

Am I the only one who just wants the old Master of Orion 1 shoot and scoot tact combat. I would like to see a modern version with the stack setup to where fleets merge into groups with really nice GalCiv type graphics would be nice for GalCiv3.

the only time i control moo3 combat is when i want to run before the battle begins

In all the recent space strategy games the so called "genius" creators fo the game have abandoned turn based combat for favor of real time, usually against the wishs of the games fan base.

Turn based combat would be fun, finally a game with it.

the only time i control moo3 combat is when i want to run before the battle begins

wait... you play moo3?

Am I the only one who just wants the old Master of Orion 1 shoot and scoot tact combat.

Yes you are, the only reason that existed was because of the limits with hardware at the time.

I don't doubt it's all been said. Also, I'm well aware of such preferences. I tend to prefer to have full control over the tactical battles in Master of Orion 2 - it's actually enjoyable, in my opinion.

What made moo2 combat great was everything you could do with it. Many componeants with special abilities and weapons with special properties. The customization and the special attacks you could use. All the strategies made it so fun. That would be impossible in a real time game, unless it were to be a click fest.

Thats why I want turn based combat, much more flavor. All the special abilities and componeants that could be added into the game would make it that much more satisfying. I want to have enveloping weapons, with ship teleporters (teleports the ship), and all of that. It was all fun.

And just like with Master of Orion, there can be the option to disable it for any particular session

or turn the speed all the way up and set auto and take control when you need to.

I really don't understand the difference between MoO1 and MoO2 tac-combat, other than the fact that MoO2 improved on it in every possible way, and doesn't seem to have changed the basic principles- based solely on my limited experience playing Star Lords (the 'pitch' version of Master of Orion- often called MoO0), and a vague memory of Master of Orion 1's system.

Pro: FUN!!! And again, for those who aren't interested in fun, an auto-resolve feature would undoubtedly be included.

I've also heard that tac combat won't be considered until GalCiv3, but until today I'd heard that Dark Avatar was going to be released this fall. Now the devs are toying with the idea of pushing back DA's release until after Christmas [March?] to add more features. If they can change their mind on release dates, maybe they can change their minds on GalCiv[2] expansion features and include tac combat!

If they can change their mind on release dates, maybe they can change their minds on GalCiv[2] expansion features and include tac combat!

No.

Games take longer to play (always a good thing)

Hmm, I'm not totally sure about that. It would depend on my mood. Optional tactical combat? Yes! Not for GC2 though. It's too late. The system isn't good enough.

PS If they put the release date back, I'll cancel my pre-order and find a new game I can play now instead.

I like the idea of being able to control the battle personaly. Good idea.

No.

Typical.

i didnt have the time to read all the replys, but i think it would be awesome if for example, you had 15 fighters against a huge class warship to be able to pick one of the fighters as a 1st person shooter, i think that would add a BIG bonus to the game, and maybe for another expansion you could be able to fight in the cities and wastlands on planets as a 1st person shooter rather than seeing two forces run past eachother shooting aimlessly and watching the numbers go down

Typical.

Tactical combat is just way too much to include outside of a complete sequel. It would require a complete overhaul of the game, and MANY hours of AI work. And Brad has said that the only way he's going to do tactical is if he can make an AI that does it well (which has pretty much never been done before in a 4x game).

Kryo: I'm sorry if you did not understand. My reply was in response to your one word answer. Ironic isn't it?

Anyway, most of us tac combat supporters have resigned ourselves to the fact that there will be no TC in GalCiv2. We also understand that TC is only a possibility in any sequel. Since shortly after Mr. Wardell stated in his follow-up to the "features we'd like to see added to the game" poll that he also would like to see Tac as a possible future addition, talk on the subject has declined. It's almost as if tac supporters think it's in the bag. I do not. I view it as a possibility [a very welcome one] but nothing more.

When responding to the OP, my desire for the inclusion of TC led me to express my hope that the Devs might also change their views on this feature since they are contemplating a change to Dark Avatars release date.

When responding to the OP, my desire for the inclusion of TC led me to express my hope that the Devs might also change their views on this feature since they are contemplating a change to Dark Avatars release date.

Unfortunately you're underestimting just how much work it would take to build a tactical combat system from scratch. It is way beyond the scope of an expansion pack so will never be in GC2. It would be the main new feature of GC3 swallowing up a huge chunk of the budget. You have to design, code, test and populate the game with all the new modules/effects to make itinteresting. And the AI has to know how to use it well enough so that players dont feel forced to fight every battle themselves.

Note that I did not say it will be in GC3, or that GC3 is in development.

The potential benefits are so huge of offering tactical combat in a sequel, that I think it would be foolish not to do it. Personally, I know more than a few people who were huge MoO2 fans but didn't really get too into GalCiv 2 because they didn't have the same level of control (mainly tactical combat and all the customization that goes with it).

AI that does it well (which has pretty much never been done before in a 4x game).

I guess Moo1 and Moo2 are chopped liver? I'm sorry I have to point that out as a direct lie.

I guess Moo1 and Moo2 are chopped liver? I'm sorry I have to point that out as a direct lie.

Doing it and doing it *well* are two very different things. Unless you enjoy the AI losing half of your fleets for you in MOO, you MUST play out the battles yourself, and that's not the sort of thing Brad wants to have happening if we implement tac.

The other problem with weak tactical AI is that the player can exploit it to make up for a weaker strategic position. As an example, in Space Empires IV, it's quite easy to build certain types of ships to defeat much more expensive AI fleets, simply by using some of the quirks of the tactical combat and the AI's incompetence to your advantage.

Rome: Total War would be another example. It's possible to defeat numerically superior AI armies by doing things that the AI simply can't handle properly. Then, when the AI is in the grips of one of its mental meltdowns and has all its units out of position and disordered, you go for the kill.

While the player outwitting the AI on the tactical battlefield is expected in general, it shouldn't be based on exploits and shouldn't become an actual part of their strategic plans. That is, the player shouldn't be able to cut corners on their overall game strategy simply because they know they'll be able to "do more with less" in the tactical portion to compensate.

As soon as people can do that, then you'll see wins on even the hardest levels become routine, and the strong strategic AI that GalCiv2 has will be hamstrung by a mediocre tactical AI (a brilliant leader hamstrung by incompetent generals, so to speak).

As soon as people can do that, then you'll see wins on even the hardest levels become routine

Probably for some players but not for everyone. For "superplayers" it is apparently difficult to program a game that is and remains challenging months after it's release. For the average player Galciv2 remains quite a challenge and I'll bet the devs will be able to create a tactical combat AI for GalCiv3 that more than satisfies the majority of its players.

As for the "superplayers"... I don't know what can be done to help them relax after a hard day at work operating on brains or at school learning how to build space rockets. They must be so smart that even a superior pc game like GalCiv2 isn't enough to help them wind down.