GalCiv I or II? » Forum Post by xoOvermindox

Seriously ?

Successfully updated karma reason!

II - Linear Tech Tree
Horrible tech writing/naming

Sometimes people just baffle me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I: Artificial Gravity techs seem to be a necessity for any realistic space travel.
II: Wide variety of weapons.

Successfully updated karma reason!

After the latest couple patches, I'm considering running Galciv1 again myself.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've certainly voted with my gameplay - I probably spent 10x as many hours playing GC1 as GC2.

I'd basically say it comes down to whether graphics matter to you or not. If you like the idea of designing your own starships, and seeing 3D rendered planets and fleet battles, then unquestionably you should play GC2.

Me, I play ever game zoomed out to the max. I turn off the fleet combat viewer and I have no idea what my ships look like. I think you can make a pretty good case that GC1 is a stronger 4x strategy game, even though it obviously gets wiped visually by GC2.

The main areas where the game seems to have regressed:
- meaningful alignment system, where your choices actually had game-long consequences.
- meaningful tech-tree, where multiple dependences are required for powerful techs.
- meaningful diplomacy
- strategic choices about planetary development. I really did have radically different planet designs in GC1. With the GC2 farming & morale formulas, every planet winds up pretty much the same.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Though I liked GalCiv 1, I find GalCiv 2 *lots* more engaging, and more "replayable" (to coin a phrase). I also like the tech tree much better, I thought the tree in 1 was quite byzantine. I guess it ends up a matter of taste, but for me it is GalCiv 2, no contest.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Seriously ?

Seriously ?!?!

GC1 was a good game, but GC2 is so much bigger and better. I think the major additions are:
1) Ship designer (both functional and visual)
2) Fleet combat
3) Play as aliens
4) Everything in DA

Those are major features that GC1 simply doesn't have.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To be honest, if it wasn't for the ship designing and fleet features, i would much prefer galciv1.

Galciv1 has many enjoyable features that were nerfed in galciv2.

love those old battle hammers! the ship that always saves my ass early on in the game.

Love terra stars and space monsters too,

Also liked being able to colonise any planet above zero quality and build as much as i want (but love the bonus tile system in galciv 2).

Successfully updated karma reason!

GalCiv I's tech tree was far superior. Techs were meaningful and had more than one requisite. In GalCiv II, techs are repetitive and boring. I much prefered GalCiv I's tech tree because it was a fun part of the game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

GalCiv I's tech tree was far superior. Techs were meaningful and had more than one requisite. In GalCiv II, techs are repetitive and boring. I much prefered GalCiv I's tech tree because it was a fun part of the game.

But you do need the repetition in order to set the scene for the 3 weapon/defence types. The three categories idea adds tremendous depth to ship designing and combat which i feel is well worth it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

GalCiv I's tech tree was far superior. Techs were meaningful and had more than one requisite. In GalCiv II, techs are repetitive and boring. I much prefered GalCiv I's tech tree because it was a fun part of the game.

But you do need the repetition in order to set the scene for the 3 weapon/defence types. The three categories idea adds tremendous depth to ship designing and combat which i feel is well worth it.

I agree that the area where the GC2 tech tree works best is the weapons & defense techs. An incremental improvement in weapons can make a big difference, and so it makes sense to have lots of incremental techs to research.

But does that mean that the rest of the tech tree needs to follow suit? It seems to be that it would be a much richer tech game if key techs like Medium Building or Terraforming required more prerequisites, and more of a strategy to obtain.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But does that mean that the rest of the tech tree needs to follow suit? It seems to be that it would be a much richer tech game if key techs like Medium Building or Terraforming required more prerequisites, and more of a strategy to obtain.

You have a point. I guess it is easier to make techs more expensive than to instead, have more prerequisits.

Successfully updated karma reason!

True, yet even the increments could be varied; for example, in order to research Phasors you had to research all plasma weapons AND anti-matter power (stupid made-up example, of course.) And like drank said, the other branches of the tree don't need to be so linear at all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hehe... it's been so long since I played GC1 that I don't remember it well. I do agree the tech tree is more streamlined for GC2. But to me it doesn't matter since I pretty research the same general sequence in both games. The added strategy in GC2 for multiple weapons types is good. GC1 limited you to building Defenders/Battle Hammers to defend and attacking with Frigates/Battleships/Rangers (basic quantity vs. quality questions). The only variety was bonuses for speed/attack/defense. Also there's more micromanagement in my opinion overall with GC1.

But I played the heck out of GC1 compared to GC2, but I was unemployed then and it was new and cool. GC2 is kind of a been there done that feel at times. Need to find time to try out DA.

It's sort of like comparing UT vs. UT2K4. My time playing UT was on the order of months while UT2K4 was more like days. UT2K4 looks great, has more modes, has vehicles, but didn't hold my attention. Come to think of it I liked BF1942 more than BF2, and MOO more than MOO2. Maybe I'm let done by the sequels since I liked the first one too much. It just didn't live up to all the time invested in the first time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Also there's more micromanagement in my opinion overall with GC1.

i would dissagree, remember in galciv1 each planet had a very handy auto launch option. That is gone in galciv2, so when i'm building transports that i don't necisarily want to launch in certain planets, it is a real headache! especially with the double launch feature - so then there is all kinds of confusion between what transports i built this turn compared to the transports i build last turn, but didn't want to launch.

And then also the green launch arrow reappears same turn which confuses me and gives me the shits because i have to watch out for it, just another thing to worry about.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I had to keep adjusting the sliders all the time with GC1. Kept worrying about each planet and where the production is going. As in there's a planet that needs to build social projects so you crank up that category. But others planets aren't building any social projects so those resources are lost. I would go in there and have planets build things I didn't need just because it was being spent anyways. I prefer the GC2 in that regard. The colony management screen is great to see what's going on and change focus of particular planets for the three production types.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I had to keep adjusting the sliders all the time with GC1. Kept worrying about each planet and where the production is going. As in there's a planet that needs to build social projects so you crank up that category. But others planets aren't building any social projects so those resources are lost. I would go in there and have planets build things I didn't need just because it was being spent anyways. I prefer the GC2 in that regard.

I don't think it is that significant, because whatever production inneficiencies galciv1 had - so did the AI! and whatever improvements galciv2 provided - so the AI gets it too.

What counts are the time wasters and i think galciv2 is worse to micromanage than galciv1 due to the loss of the planitary auto launch.

I can remember in galciv1 - i would sit and hit 'end turn' 10/15/20 times without having to bother doing anything at all because of that wonderful auto launch feature, now with galciv2, i HAVE to stuff around each and every turn if i'm building transports and that really pisses me off.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree that the tech tree in Galciv1 was more robust. In Galciv1 got cool stuff like genetic engineering and terror stars. In Galciv2 however, you get crap like "Laser II" OHHHHH! SO EXCITED!

I'd basically say it comes down to whether graphics matter to you or not. If you like the idea of designing your own starships, and seeing 3D rendered planets and fleet battles, then unquestionably you should play GC2.

I really don't think the graphics are the top priority. If the game lags and sputters, I would prefer a game that runs instead of looking good while you choke on your own rage whilst glaring at your PC's screen! 2D has its advantages over 3D you know!

Successfully updated karma reason!