I'm pretty new to the game (actually very new to the game), and I do enjoy playing it, but the two most glaring problems I have are with the combat viewer and being able to upgrade your starships on the other side of the universe.

The combat viewer just doesn't seem very well implemented. I can't find ANY camera in the selections that give me a meaningful look at what's going on, and my ships just seem to float around aimlessly with no purpose while a little red line occasionally shoots out from one to another. It's really anti-climatic in my opinion; so much so that I'm thinking of just turning it off altogether. That to me represents a huge problem when someone spends so much time designing their ships and being proud of their creations, but doesn't even want to watch them do that for which they were created. Better cameras, more (or better) weapon effects, ships that move like they have a purpose and are tactically trying to accomplish something. All could be done to enhance the viewer.

Upgrading ships is my other gripe, since both technically and logistically it should be impossible for a starship to upgrade all on its own on the other side of the galaxy. The ship wouldn't have the components and it would very doubtfully have the expertise to carry out such a feat. I think allowing upgrades to only occur in the AOE of a starbase would be a good idea to fix this.

I'm also new to the game; I played the first GC game and liked it. However, this game just seems incomplete, like GC 1.5 rather then 2. After playing four games in sandbox mode my stats are 1 game crushed by the AI. 1 Game won by tech victory and 2 games resigned for sheer soul crushing boredom.

This game just feels shallow, the random events are the same as in GC1. The weapons are all generic rock paper scissors stuff. The ships and components all very just in size, and price. Despite the "great AI" the AI is declaring war for transports I am building across the map. Then the Empires are surrendering to each other two turns after war is declared. The combat viewer is a bad joke, it looks like a bunch of fish swimming around in an aquarium; Why bother putting this feature in?

Now rather then address the problems people are having stardock is talking about GC3 and expansion packs we are to buy to get features I thought were part of the base package.

To be a classic, I think a game needs to separate itself from the competition in a memorable way. This game has not even managed to separate itself from GC1. To make it a classic, Fix the Combat, Fix the Logistics and add some strategic elements into space combat. The forums here are filled with people who are much nicer and more polite then I am who are detailing what they would like to see in this game, GC3 might be a classic but I don't think GC2 will be.

I agree the combat viewer is a little boring but probably close to reality. Most Sci-Fi that deals with space combat cheats. (Star Wars, BG, etc.) They make small fighters fly as if they are flying in an atmosphere to make the battles more exciting. AFAIK Babylon 5 was the only one who had their ship flying as in real space. You just float in one direction while spinning around and shoot in any direction. Then even in movies the big capital ships just sit there and shoot at one another.

As for the combats I would peronsally prefer it if they just had two lines and approached each other sedately firing away. All the current interlaced swooping is kind fo silly.

"Haha I remember deadlock 2. that was some fun stuff. It annoyed me about only having 2 tanks per spot, 4 missiles, etc, but it was fun."

^That was Deadlock 1 inches^

"oh my clavical" hahahaha that one always cracks me up!



The expansion fixed that. Deadlock was a brilliant game indeed although the AI is a little coy in the expansion..... it won't attack unless it can easily win, so the whole game turns into a bit of an arms race with no one willing to make the first move.

GC2 is a great game, and eventually it will be regarded as a classic. What would have made it into an instant classic is:

Tactical combat - Argue all you want. As the spiritual successor to MOO2 replacing tak combat with the bobbly fishtank viewer was a bit of a letdown.

amputating the bobbly fishtank viewer. nuff said

improving the triple cheese invasion graphics - lets face it they are just a tacky 3D representation of the MOO2 invasion sequence, without the charm. anyone remember the way the armoured robots fell to their knees before exploding into pixels.

The fact that the AI declares war on you and nothing happens for ages - we get plenty of chances to build a suitable defense from scratch. Also when they do arrive an clear your planet of its defenders they send lone transport that barely dents your population. and isn't it great that every planets population takes up arms - I wonder if they arm their pets too, like the dog in centurions...Seriously, is this some sort of dumbing down for 21st century players. Anyone remember the darlok empire suddenly materializing on your doorstep and nuking your best production world? thats how war should be waged.

Multiplayer - I rarely play any multiplayer games, but in this day and age its got to be considered as essential.

here are some games I consider to be classics:

x-com ufo defense - PC
x-com apocalypse - PC
turok - N64
goldeneye - N64
mario 64 - N64
Total annihilation - PC
Command and conquer red alert - PC
MOO2 - PC
Civ3 - PC
Shogun Total War - PC
Heroes of might and magic 3 - PC
Timesplitters 2 - Gamecube
Timesplitters FP - Xbox
Ninja Gaiden - Xbox
Alpha centauri - PC
Oblivion - PC
Homeworld - PC
Advance Wars - GBA

later

I just have to throw in my 2 BC. GC2/DA is a classic. It out-MOOs MOO. Seriously. I know this is my own opinion, but its SOoo good. MOO 1&2 are lesser/inferior in comparison. Let's not even bring up MOO 3. When you want a 4x TBS game in space, GC2/DA is ALL you need. I also want to throw in some kudos for Frogboy too. The AI are so good as opponents and keep you (the player) hopping.

In my opinion, I think SideMancer partially hit the nail on the head when it comes to why I don't consider GalCiv2 a classic. It sounds contradictory, but one of the things that makes this game great is also one of the things that keeps it from becoming a classic for me - namely the perpetual updates (though I suppose expansions could be included in this). Classics don't need continuing tweaks to gameplay. Classics need a patch or two to fix bugs, but seldom need aspects of the core gameplay changed. So if GalCiv2 were a classic for me, I'd already be perfectly content with the gameplay. And I'm not.

The balance of why GalCiv2 isn't a classic to me resides in:

A) Lack of tactical combat (strategic depth is somehow lacking)

The generally unpolished feel to the game. Don't get me wrong, GalCiv2 looks reasonably good and it certainly plays enjoyably, but it still somehow feels more like a budget game than a polished classic. I can't describe it better than that though.

For me a classic is a game that is not only fun and well balanced but that has that little extra that make you come back to it even after e.g. the graphic might be outdated. The final feeling of the game.

IMHO the elements that can be improved are: better graphics - for more fetischism (especially in combat), less colony rush, completely revamped spying. The best feature of the game: the possibility to easily make up your own opponents with personality, stats and images ... As long as you keep your imagination you can go on playing!

Well i fired up the old civ3 over the weekend, and after playing that game again, having a refreshed perspective, yes i would have to agree with the above!

PS I love the bombard units outside city feature which is in civ3,,,, all those annoying enemy ships come within 2 squares of my coastline, watch out! For all those poor saps playing civ4, sorry to dissapoint, but your artillery is not allowed to shoot enemy ships off your coast, too bad