I can't imagine a game called Galactic Civilizations only letting you place three weapons on a ship.

Willy's mostly right about your progression as well, which I'm hoping was just for the sake of an example.  You get marginal, almost useless gains from Tier 1 to Tier 5; such that you'd be better off researching better weapons.

Extending the weapons/defense system to be multidimensional in and of itself is not an inherently bad idea, but combining it with the limited slots you propose makes me facepalm.

It would also be more likely to trigger an attack bonus based on type. Multitype weapons would not be so obviously inferior to single type, as you clearly stated later in your post.

That is essentially the nature of my objection. To properly defend your ships against one threat would leave them nearly naked against a second opponent. Three types of defense are not too bad, as there are a limited number of permutations to defend against - two opponents may share a defense or attack tech, making it possible to build ships to combat both. With the number of possible "properties" you seem to be considering (8, maybe 12+?), no fleet composition could possibly work against more than one opponent. Barring any other combat mechanic you randomly insert, the optimal response to that situation is to maximize offense while giving up on defense as ineffective.

Effectively unlimited, yes. Currently, you can have ONE support module of each type in effect per fleet - stacking attack modules only gives you the benefit of the best one. Your system, even if the early modules can only affect one ship at a time, will result in massive module stacking to make up for the glaring lack of weapons. Worse, if you allow multiple modules to affect one ship, what's to stop someone from stacking ALL that fleet's bonuses onto one attack, boosting a 3 attack ship to 20+ and getting an instant kill each time it fires?

Explain to me what the difference is between having four ships, each with a module that adds +2 attack to another's attack are functionally different from having four ships with a second weapon on them to add +2 to their own attack? This entire system strikes me as unnecessarily complicated and an AI programming disaster. If you want to force fleet diversity, why not just use the Sins system, with weapons that are more or less effective against different ship types? (I'm not saying I particularly like that idea either, I'm just wondering.)

I guess you're right. This system will be nearly as screwed as the current one. However, it seems that the problem is in the specific numbers as opposed to the actual idea: with some new numbers, it MAY work.

Which is exactly the same effect we have right now.

This is just an addendum to your comment, Willy; it seems like that's the only line you forgot.

Marginal? The difference between having a utility module and not having a utility module is huge. Much of the power of ships come from different utility modules interacting with one another. Many utility modules only provide a per-ship bonus, so a ship that has both an attack and a utility module is better than one without a slot for utility modules.

Let's look at each Tier compared to the one before it.

Tier 2 gets utility modules. This is absolutely huge; a fleet without utility modules is basically at the mercy of whatever the enemy brought. Utility modules can provide the flexibility to deal with a specialized fleet and even overpower defenses meant for you.

Tier 3 allows you to combine utility modules with a ship that can actually have a defense module. So now, you start seeing utility modules that provide bonus defense to that ship. This again provides a degree of defensive flexibility.

Tier 4's ability to combine multiple utility modules on the same ship means that you can boost a particular kind of attack to previously unreachable ranges. Alternatively, you can use the extra module space for larger modules; 2 slots might be the standard cost for global ship bonuses.

Tier 5 starts to bring multiple attack or defensive systems. However, none of them have utility modules, so you're still relying on older designs to provide additional bonuses to those systems.

Tier 6 brings the first 3 utility module ship. That should be pretty important, as you're now talking about the ability to have fewer ships with utility modules while still getting the same effect. You no longer have to rely on giving most of your ships utility modules; you can concentrate them in a few ships while the majority focus on having more attack modules.

Tier 7 gets you to 3 attack or defense modules. 3 attack modules can allow for a powerful 3-slot attack weapon, or just a lot of independent weapon systems built into an single ship. 

You're thinking too much in terms of GC2's combat model, where attack and defense are the important things and utility modules just provide a small buff here and there. This system is designed around utility modules; the attack/defense modules are just something for the utility modules to key off of.

That is the point. It is not a linear progression. New things are not automatically better than the old. And if they are better, they can be better in ways that don't matter to you right now. If your entire strategy for your combat fleets is based on buffing weapons based on "light" and "ion" types, a plain old "energy" weapon isn't useful for you. However, if your enemy has adapted, and they're using defenses based on "light" and "ion" types, then that plain old "energy" weapon is starting to look at lot better. It might actually do some damage, unlike your current weapon systems.

How? Even the ship with the most utility modules only can have 3. There won't be any massive stacking of anything because the slot system forbids it.

Because weapons shouldn't work that way.

One of the reasons for limiting the space for adding this is so that a weapon can be something more than just a number. Under my system, multiple weapon systems are not added together to get a single attack value. That is unworkable with a system that's built around bonuses against damage types because the types will all add together. Each weapon, even weapons on the same ship, attacks individually. Of course, each defense defends individually as well; a ship will use the most advantageous defense against each attack that targets it.

When I said I didn't like "bigger number wins," I meant it. This combat system is not built around bigger numbers, but smarter fleet construction. So you can't just win by piling on more and more stuff; you have to think about what you're sending into battle.

It creates much of the complexity of tactica combat, but it put it where it belongs: outside of battle.

The AI for it may be difficult, but it's not that hard. It's all about reading what the enemy is using in their fleets and designing an appropriate counter. The last part is quite algorithmic once you know what your enemy is using against you.

Because then there wouldn't be ship design. This system is like putting together a Magic: the Gathering deck. You have to think about each individual piece and how it interacts with the whole.

The "Sins system" is limited and limiting. It keeps out player expression of ideas, in place of a forced dominance by the game designer. My system is about giving the player meaningful choices, while simultaneously forcing them to build exploitable weaknesses into their fleets. No fleet can ever be unbeatable; if you try to build a generic fleet, a highly-specialized one with overlapping bonuses can kill you. Highly-specialized fleets are themselves vulnerable to some particular weakness, so a well-designed fleet can counter them.

If you're getting that impression, then it is due to not fully appreciating how the system works.

First, even if you build ships without defense modules, you still have the logistics limit on how many can be in a fleet at once. If they can one-shot your ships (perhaps with liberal use of a "first strike" utility module), they can easily take your army apart.

Further, attack modules have properties that they confer onto their attacks when they fire. Defense modules have properties, but they can also have intrinsic bonuses against certain kinds of attack properties. So, an attack module might be 3 attack value with "energy" and "light" properties. A defense module might be 2 defense with a +2 defense against "light" attacks. 3 attack vs. 4 defense. However, had you gone with a 3 attack value module with "kinetic" and "penetrating", you would have 3 attack vs. 2 defense.

There is no attack pattern against which a defense cannot be erected. The arrangement of properties on attack modules will be designed specifically to make this impossible, particularly in the early game. Even if you try a thing where each ship in the fleet has a different weapon, they can simply bring defensive utility modules into play. Defense modules can have their own bonuses, but defensive utility modules can provide alternative bonuses to help deal with a generic enemy attacker.

And since you cannot overload attack modules like in GC2 (that is, you can't put an attack module in the spot for a defense module), you're not going to be getting much advantage out of slotting entirely for attack. Oh, you might gain some production bonus, but your ships will be significantly less effective against theirs. And since the improvement on weapons is 2-dimensional, new weapons will not necessarily have greater attack strength. Those that do will have more attack properties, and that will spell defeat against their defense modules.

This basically implies that the bonus is so Goddamned large that it dwarfs the weapon.  This is a classic Bad Idea in my book.

Whatever happened to your law of small numbers?

Fleets.  You mentioned that some modules might provide a fleet bonus as some Atlas modules do in TA, if I remember correctly.  Alternatively, better modules, since you seem to want to make them so outrageously bonused.

You do know that as of DA, each weapon on a ship fires individually, against the entirety of the target ship's defense, yes?  No?

Maybe I'm misreading that-I honestly can't tell what you're saying your system does that the GC2 system does not do.

I'm glad there's something we can agree on.

Now, i know what you are trying to do; this inserts Tactical Combat *steps* (be open-minded about the principle of context this time around) into a linear design made of 'Attack/Defense' features by ratio and quantities represented by Tiers (or slots) such as what i was trying to express with the previous T2S3M5L7H10 (not by any sense, scripted in final values, btw) equation.

It's somewhat, overcomplicating the current tree pathing structures to gain either efficiency or gameplay balance... admit it.

That shifts the focus on B/S + M/P + D(guns)/A(rmor) back where it always was; you still must match an attack to defend against it.

I just want Beams to affect PointDefs & Armors (and multiple combinations thereof, as a result), to simplify how i want the combat modulo calculations factored in WHEN ships aren't matched and thus, offer little resistance or overwhelming advantages because the ruleset allows it.

Well, i'd guess a clear NO, since his proposition as a whole gives principles & capacities to A weapon beyond Attack points only.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but what matters is the amounts facing each other for clear determination of the  necessary but usual ships attrition; Plasma or Laser is enough of an indirect hint to me on HOW something fires up, although Kanvium takes a bit more visualization of its location ON a tree to evaluate some defensive chances against rather complex variables as it is. Sizes, Costs & Damages values, Types & Branches, aside - of course.

Super-Warrior does it, we already must fight against it.

Bullshit. For roughly equivalent tech levels, defenses are currently viable, especially at low tech levels. Only at the extreme high end does the all attack ship consistently win.

As Sole Soul pointed out, you fail at understanding the system you want to replace.

And yet, for your description of tiers 4 and 6 you clearly point out that utility modules from some ships will affect others. THAT is the massive stacking I'm saying will happen, and you've clearly seen the possibilities yourself.

And you're under the impression that this system COULD work. I have yet to be convinced.

At low tech levels, sure.  At medium tech levels, no.  TA changed the research costs for weapons-twice, actually; once they were made anywhere from 1/3 to 1/5 of the cost and then they (as well as defenses) had a 50% modifier added to them.  Bottom line is they're still assloads cheaper than in DA, while defenses generally cost you more, and this skews the balance even more in favor of weapons.  Not to mention how cheap Psionic Beam is now-and in the trees that for some reason it isn't, psionic missile gladly takes its place.

Did you miss the part where I was (primarily) agreeing with you?

No it doesn't; it just needs to be large enough to get past defenses. If basic attacks vs basic defenses of the same tech generation generally leads to a + or - 2 difference, then all you need is a +2 or +3 to get past the defenses. Likewise, a +2 defense bonus will negate that, bringing things back down to where they were.

It's exactly like the example I pointed out. A 3 attack vs. 2 + 2 bonus defense will succeed or fail depending on whether the defense bonus is triggered. Give the attacker a +2, and the attacker wins regardless of the defense bonus. Give both a +2, and we're back to where we started.

It's all a question of module design. There are ways to design modules so that trying to massively slot out global bonus modules will not be viable. I wouldn't imagine you'd even get utility modules that provide global bonuses until Tier 4 at the earliest.

Alternatively, global bonuses could require a 3-slot utility module, which makes them a purely late-game feature. Even production costs can be properly leveraged to make such stacking impractical.

And if none of that works, then you forbid global bonuses altogether. There are plenty of powers for utility modules that don't have to involve global bonuses; it's hardly a key point of the system. Targeted bonuses, one that affects a particular other ship in the fleet, are certainly possible.

Of course there's potential for abuse. Utility modules can do anything; if you make bad utility modules, then you get abuse and degeneracies.

Assuming that you're going to fail at designing something, before the process even starts, is not a good idea. You could just as easily say that the GC2 production model is faulty because they could design a building that gives a massive tax bonus, massive morale bonus, and gives you 50mp and research.

I realize you're designing this system to fit in with the whole D&D d20 rules and what not, but seriously - this is not the way to design a game. Combat should not feel like two armed rowboats are firing popguns at each other. I'm assuming you're keeping ship health/HP/whatever to a bare minimum as well, but an effective 1-point attack (attack advantage over defense, as you've made quite clear there are no random elements in your vision of combat) may take ten rounds of combat to destroy one tiny ship. Of course, those ten rounds would never need to be played out, as anyone can simply calculate what the results would be and attack or run accordingly.

If anything, your system would result in MORE unbeatable ships and one sided combat compared to current methods. Assuming you are the aggressor and designed your fleet correctly, the completely predictable results of the battle can be planned ahead of time, resulting in a massacre of the defenders who's ships are unable to get through your precisely planned fleet defenses.

Your bonus system sounds like the worst case of bigger number wins I've ever heard of. I mean seriously, how can you type this statement, then follow it with "Give the attacker a +2, and the attacker wins regardless of the defense bonus." Those statements are so diametrically opposed to each other the internet should have ended in an antimatter-like explosion. You're replacing current numbers with lower integer values, true, but at those lower values, the bigger number wins. Period. All that is changing is the method of arriving at the bigger number, and what the value of that number is.

If this is the alternative to tactical combat, I pray we get tactical combat.

And to bring up a point I don't believe you have yet adequetely addressed, I repeat:

This time address the part you ignored earlier, that the DA and TA weapons already fire individually.

For those who seem not to know if you give a minor race a colony ship they will use it.

My understanding based on someone else's posts and testing (can't remember who) was that you had to reload the game save for them to start colonizing, after changing their AI to a "generic" major.

It would be interesting for this to be more accessible in GC3, but the question arises what makes minors minors if they can colonize and invade?

They can't build the ships

You've got me there.

I was alluding to prospective GC3 functionality which would enable them to do so.  My apologies for not being more clear.

I see a lot of good ideas about GC3 but does anyone know if there even will be a GC3 and by when?

Supposedly in 2 years. Although I'm not entirely sure. Most everybody at Stardock is focused on Elemental @ the moment, but they keep dropping hints that GC3 might actually use the Elemental engine...

I agree with you.  The map should be bigger even to the point of one including one full galaxy.  There should be no minor races.  Any race that would build space ships would colonize. 

I think that galaxies in Galciv 3 should actually look like Galaxies.

maybe not 3d such as sins but a 3d map.

Prehaps something like the Space Stage in Spore

yes  all of it including zooming into a system