Sorry you feel that way, I for one love the game. But every game isnt for every person. Hope you find a game that suits you mate!

/Andreas

Try Space Empires IV, sounds more to your style.

Leto, inquiring minds want to know, so don't be afraid to answer.

You aren't like, retarded or anything are you?

AND STOP SHOVELING YOUR CRAP ABOUT WANTING A WORTHY SUCCESSOR TO MOO2. It was pointed out before, the best games don't need successors because they are fun forever. You lose your argument on the aspect of tactical combat, so you call it "another dry, half-implemented, 4x space game". If you didn't care about the game at all you wouldn't of posted. There's a limit on the amount of civility you get when you post drek. You hit it.

What Leto Silvermane is really saying:
GALCIV IS NOT FOR ME.

Ok, we understand, different people like different games. Please understand most of us like this game, we knew what to expect when we bought it and our expectations were met or exceeded.

Discussion of tactical combat in GalCiv pointless. You are looking for another game. Good luck.

Tactical combat in MOO2 was, for all intents and purposes, as meaningful as enabling "god mode" because the AI had absolutely no clue about either ship design or battle tactics. I've seen it ignore critical specials, spend most of its space on plasma weapons and then blithely let me keep the range far enough so its plasma webs were useless, build doom stars filled with nuclear bombs... in other words, it lowered the difficult several notches.

It was also, essentially, cheating in Space Empires IV as well since again the computer had no concept of tactics, and ship design was crudely hardcoded by AI scripters.

Leto, you are still missing the point. The game is designed to simulate running an empire from the top down. I don't care if you as a player can run hundreds of battles per turn. As a galactic emperor, you wouldn't and you couldn't. You give the basic commands: this fleet attacks here, that fleet attacks here, etc. It's GRAND STRATEGY not individual unit combat. Is Bush making personal command decisions on where to send every individual tank in Iraq? Tactical combat is meaningless in a game that is designed to be played from the top down, it just doesn't fit the design philosophy. Its just bells and light shows that mean nothing on the grand scale of things.

I don't think GC is for you if you need tactical combat that badly and I doubt the design team is going to change their whole philosophy to support it.

Geez, the reaction gets worse and worse to things in here. He has a legitimate request. The combat as it stands is pretty dull. Just simple numbers back and forth is all it is, I can't see how theres much manuerving invovled. See enemy, go in straight line to enemy and kill enemy. The problem is though this game follows the Civ design for some things it left out something vital.

That thing is terrain. Combat in civ is pretty simplistic, but thats alleviated by having terrain bonuses/penaltys and experience levels. You could defend your spearmen on a hilltop in valiant defense against a tank, or whatever. Combat wasn't just a simple bigger is better. However in space you don't have much to work with.

This was probably the reason for the combat seen in MoO. Ships fighting on a dull black background doing simple number crunching doesn't exactly inspire. What GalCiv needs is terrain. Give asteroid fields, radiation rings, gas giants affecting sensors, etc... Have bonuses/penaltys applied for being in different areas. It would make combat more exciting and make space look alot better.

I'm assuming true combat ala MoO will never be in sense the lead designer mocked the thread starter, but maybe this can? Civ in space just really doesn't work without the importance of terrain. A one tile starbase you improve is nice, but its pretty abstracted and you don't get much of an impression from it.

Also, it makes no sense to say you're "taking things from a grand scale" when the Emperor has to specifically dictate everything built. Theres no basis for combat being something you shouldn't be able to control. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter.

Abe - GalCIv isn't MOO. It's not designed to be like MOO.

How do you think MOO users would feel if GalCiv players over on the MOO forums saying that starlanes are a "non starter". That the lack of free movement in space is too confining stategically.

GalCiv is, ultimately GalCiv. It's not designed to be a MOO sequel. There is a MOO sequel shpping right now -- MOO 3.

No game can be everything to everyone.

~SDC~

I appreciate your reply but I already said I didn't expect MoO combat. I pointed out that while it is Civ style combat it lacks an important part of that which is terrain. I'm not asking for MoO-style combat since theres no chance of it being added, I was just asking for more factors to be a part of combat and to help make space not as bland.

GalCiv has star bases which have the same sort of effect.

Now, when/if there's ever a sequel we can discuss other concepts. But part of the reason that it is the wya it is is to keep it as simple as possible.

I wrote an article a year ago that outlines the philosophy on the game and it basically boils down to the belief that in modern warfware, tactics are irrelevant. Logistics and strategy are all that ultimately matter.

~SDC~

Tactical combat is fun. It adds a lot of strategy to ship battles where both sides are fairly evenly matched. It can also be very pretty. It can force you to really think about whether you should protect a unit or use it as bait, etc.

Not having it hardly breaks the game though. :notsure:
As far as I'm aware, Warlords IV is going to continue in the same vein as it's predecessors and have the same basic sort of combat as GalCiv's? Are people going to accuse Warlords of being a non-started because of that?

Look at and judge the game for what it is, not for what it's not. The space combat is not meant to be one of the major focal points, since military victory is only 1 of 4 ways to win.

~SDC~

Yes, I said I knew about the starbases. It really seems like things were oversimplified. Build a starbase anywhere in the sector and its bonuses will be applied, thats the only set radius. Its all straightforward and takes away any real involvement needed. In civ games bad manangement of terrain could make or break you. However in here your planets are just based on quality so that isn't much of an issue, you just have a lack of terrain for otherthings.

Having starbases which say boost production requiring asteroids or maybe moons or something similar within a certain radius to get bonus would be good. Maybe starbases that can terraform planets over extended periods of time requiring to be built right next to planet. Maybe expand and add other improvements like re-introduce stargates as a form of quicker travel between two planets. Poll the fans and see what they think might be good to add, i'm sure all the various 4x fans could toss out some.

Also I don't mean every tile covered by some type of terrain, have fields of debris/asteroids/etc..., gas giants, nebulaes, etc... Don't make things too cluttered, just open up the oppurtunity for more tactics, more uses of space, and better looking space. I'm sure asking fans could produce a wide range of scenery needed to make it as well.

As for tactics being irrelvant in modern warfare thats only because whens the last war fought where both sides were rougly equal? Sure when you're fighting someone using outdated equipment and has been trained less tactics aren't as important. But if you're facing a well-armed foe with similar training tactics can become the deciding factor.

Lastly, I thought new concepts was the reason GalCiv was going to be continually updated throughout the next year. This doesn't overly complicate anything and wouldn't be months of work, it would also add alot to the game since Civ fans are the target audience. Also given the quality of the AI teaching it a few new tricks to asses terrain can't be too tough can it? I mean it has to have some code for dealing with the starbases which would be similar.

Anyway, its almost 4am now and i've rambled on again so i'll go get some sleep.

Leto looks like a troll, guarding the Tac Combat bridge ..
I'm clearly against ship-to-ship detailed combat in GalCiv, it would be out of design (and not have much interest without ship design, that is even more out of design ...).
But I would enjoy a sort of "improved stack combat", where one could give some "orders" that will impact how combat is resolved, for example :
* Lines of battle : "First line" ships would be first to attack/defend, where "2nd line" combat ships may attack at reduced value but have defense bonus
* "Strategies" working somewhat like paper/rock/Scissors, and/or modifying globally attack/defense/speed of ships
* Command ships that will add to fleet abilities, according to type and number of ships
...
That would IMHO be in line with GC scope and design, make combat more interesting, not cripple AI and overall not add significantly to playing time nor distract player from The Big Picture
My 0.02 EUR ..

Well I am really enjoying the game but I understand the originally posters request. Tactical combat would have been great I can just imagine some specialized ships blasting away at each other with turbo phasers etc... Hopefully Frogboy will implement it in Gal Civ 2 and take the game to another level.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels tactical combat would improve the game.

I'm not a troll. I'm aggravated and disappointed and that's why my posts are a little blunt/rude. To be fair, GalCiv has many excellent features. First, the user interface is clean and intuitive. Second, the cut scenes are well done. Third, game is well balanced. Fourth, the random events and United Planets accomplish the goal of "never the same galaxy twice". Finally, it is relatively bug free.

Please add tactical combat and/or spice up the sound and graphics to make the game even better.

Here is just one example of how combat could be improved without changing the way the game plays:

When two fleets engage in battle display a battle screen with ships on one side in a column on the left and ships on the other side in a column on the right. Each ship fires in turn at a specific ship on the other side. As ships are destroyed, they are removed from the screen. In this way, battles play out exactly as they do now except you can see individual ships. Don't tell me that it is impossible to implement or would drastically alter the nature of the game.

One other point. In Civilization, each unit plays a different sound when it attacks. A horseman sounds like a horse. A cannon sounds like a cannon, etc. In GalCiv, they all use the same graphic and make the same sound. If each class of ship had it's own visual effect for attacking and it's own sound, the game would be improved - again, without significantly affecting game play.

But what I really want is turn based tactical combat, like Heros of Might and Magic. I know it's hard, but please do it anyway.

Sincerely,
Leto Silvermane

Uhhhh, play the game a bit more, then come back and criticise.
They all use the same graphic? Come on, I don't play warlike races and even *I'VE* seen different attack graphics.

~SDC~

Leto, save your breath (or digits). It's not going to happen.

There's no rule that says that all 4X TBS space game have to be MOOx clones. GalCiv has a different focus and it's refreshing. Different CAN be good.

~SDC~

Leto, I think more people would take you seriously if you were less "This is what I think needs to be changed NOW CHANGE IT OR DIE" attitude oriented. Thats just what I gather anyways.

Well maybe things are calming a little at least.

A few points that spring to mind.

I don't think Ascendancy had a tactical combat element to it. Not to my menory anyway although its been years since I played it. You moved ships on the system map and fought on the system map. No separate screen for combat. Now given the choice between the prettier graphics of ascendancy (or possibly even moo2/3) and no AI to speak of whatsoever I think most of us would be happy to sacrifice pretty graphics for challenging play. My own preference anyway is good AI.

On the other point I'mn not sure how many of you here are programmers but I think most of you are familiar with the customer who says "Do this". Why? Because it looks pretty. It doesn't add anything to the product and it takes more time and money (for which they invariably aren't willing to pay) and then when it gets thrown in as an afterthought and works poorly they get upset as it doesn't meet their expectations.

If you add major components to any project that weren't in the initial design at short notice I think most of know how that story will turn out...

I bought Galciv knowing there was no tactical combat. So far its suited me fine and I see no outcry for it to be added. I bought MOO3 hoping for tactical combat and a space strategy game and we all know how THAT turned out unfortunately.

Galciv was the game that popped out as an excellent alternative which satisfies my desire to play a 4x game. Certainly a worthy playmate to MOO2 in my own view. Given that I've played Space Empires 4 (good game too), Stars and a few others.

The suggestion about having a battle screen where ships line up to fire sounds like Reach for the Stars 2 which while it was an adequate game didn't have that play one more turn feel I get from this game so far. The battle screen was aesthetically pleasing but it was there as eye candy and I think there were other areas of it that could have done with a lot more work (tech tree for one).

Ultimately unless theres a big outcry for a feature and people are willing to support a major change to the way the game plays (which would cost time and money to do) its not going to happen. I for one am happy with the game so far.

"and a legion of grognards defending it..."

It's not very grognardy to defend *simpler* design.

~SDC~

Ok from my point of view tactical combat is no where near necessary. I still fire up MoO 2 sometimes and I leave the tactical combat off. Hell I don't even design ships anymore when I play it. Thats why GalCiv is a god send. No boring micromanagment. Ships upgrade automaticaly , battles are fast and leave more time for more important things like figuring out how to save yor dying empire from extinction.

I think you're missing something, Leto.

First off, Moo2 was not this great game that you say it is. It's dry, dull, and extremely easy to beat. Give me creative vs any of the AIs at any level and I win, every single time.

That said, if you want a successor to Moo2, why not consider Moo3?

Now, in my not so humble opinion, even Infogrames knows the MOO line is dead when they put an ad in my Moo3 box that says "Take Back the Galaxy March 26!"

The only thing I have to ask is take it back from whom? I think it was pretty clear that putting an ad for a similar product in the box is pretty much admitting that they don't want people spending time on the first product. Kindof a "Here. Hold this while we wait for that."

Now, I have seen plenty of 4x games use Tactical battle screens. HoMM4 , the new Moo3, etc. The point is that this game is NOT heroes 4 or Moo3. This game is its own beast. It was designed this way, it was programmed this way, and I think from the apperance here, its users want it to stay that way.

Now, if you think that this is half implemented, I advise you to take a look at Moo3. You wanted a successor to Moo2, well there you go.

Finally, STOP BLAMING GALCIV FOR MOO3'S SUCKINESS AND THAT PRODUCT LINE'S DISMAL END.

Thanks


~SDC~

I was and still am a big fan of Moo2 with all its trappings and glories. I was bitterly dissapointed with Moo3 and its 'interpretation' of the 4x sim genre. In no way is it a successror to Moo2. It's a bland and sterile experience unlike the earlier games.

I'm also a newly made fan of GalCiv the way it was designed is fine by me. It would be presumptious of me to try to talk a developer into making a sequel of a game I used to liked.

GalCiv ultimately abstracts the military skirmishes into "Bigger guns beat smaller guns" kinda thing and it suits the game well. After all, military conquest is only a small part of GalCiv disign philosophy. In Moo there was a race to build a stack of missle gunboats, in GalCiv I tend to plot and scheme on the galactic scale much more. Cultural domination, aliences, trade, etc... it's great!

but, whatever you do, please don't use the 'realism' reasoning in defining game features. this ruined Moo3, IMHO. I love GalCiv for the sheer fun and 'charm' that it shares with Moo1 and 2. sorry, I can't define it any better. I don't want a pseudo-realistic simulator of anything after I come home from crunching numbers at work (I'm a software developer in robotics/industry automation) I loved tactical combat in Moo2 because I could see the 'cool' beams that my eggheads just researched in action, my leader Commander Sparky gaining experience, moving neat ships around, etc... purely viscereal fun, really.

this is not really a critisism of anyone's point, just something that's been bothering me for a while. please, keep making these game with a little humor,

thanks for the great game, and pardon any incoherencies in this post - very little sleep lately

I didn't read this whole thread, just scanned (sorry got bored with it ) But Leto sounds like you want Space Empires IV. Its more of a MOO game while GalCiv is more of a Civ game.

And Leto, you got the reaction you did because your comments were somewhat trollish. Obviously many people enjoy the game as is, and you come in saying that its practically worthless because of one thing that YOU think should be there.

Tactical combat with an auto-resolve wouldn't work for this game. The only way to get the auto-resolve to come close to matching what would happen would be to play it out with the AI controlling both sides (as in MoO2/MoO3), and that takes to long in MoO3 sometimes, let alone here where you're usually attacked across a wide front instead of a single attack per turn at your chokepoints.