I have made my own games. Just because I post about stuff I don't like doesn't mean I'm out of touch. It means your getting a wider audience. Not everyone is going to agree. Of course I'm probably the only one who doesn't like what's going on with the fleet battles who is bothering to post. If each ship would target another ship then great. If it's let us watch the whole fleet target one ship at a time then we are back at the kind of strategy where we all stand in a line facing eachother and fire until the other side runs out of soldiers. There is no strategy involved. Bigger numbers and higher tech level win. It just looks nice.

But you don't have the beta.  You have no idea how it plays, what it looks like, etc.  The fleet battles have been in for months and people like it universally.

In another thread, you claimed I don't know strategy.  If you want people to remotely take you seriously, you need to come down off your high-horse. 

Perhaps some basic element of tactical maneouver can be incorporated into fleet battles. 2 or 3 options at the most. 1) Target same ship, 2) Target individual ship, 3) Target 2 ships, or something like that.

Actually I do have the beta. I do enjoy the game, mostly. I'm frustrated with fleet battles but for some reason until a few days ago I thought the end product would have some kind of user control in fleet battles. I'm sorry for saying you don't know strategy that was me being a moron. So this will be my last post on the subject and if I can't say something nice I'll be quiet.

Tactical is the bomb.  Moo2 proved tactical is immensly popular reguardless if the AI is good or not.

However, Galciv from the getgo has not had a tactical focus - which is unfortunate IMHO.  Frogboy has some personal vendetta against tactical - but that's his call as developer.

I hope in future versions of galciv that tactical starship combat gets put in.

 

 

 

That is, if you have an option to not watch fleet battles.

Well, you have it. There are lots of options associated with battle and fleet battle.

Perhaps some basic element of tactical maneouver can be incorporated into fleet battles. 2 or 3 options at the most. 1) Target same ship, 2) Target individual ship, 3) Target 2 ships, or something like that.

well, given Frogboy's posts in another thread, attack orders are:
- find a ships that deals lots of damage and can be killed fastly.
- attack it until it is dead
- target the next ships with the same algorithm.

And I don't think why someone would do otherwise: being able to greatly reduce the attack power of the ennemy with the minimum of shots is rarely a bad tactic.

BTW, one important thing in fleet battle is the fact that damages done by a ship are computed before the next ship on the same side decides which ship to fight, meaning that they won't waste shots on a ship that has been destroyed by the previous shot. The tricky part is that when watching the battle, the calculation is made before you see the weapons fired. You need to pay attention to the central bottom screen that informs you of the damage made by the various ships and the target they have choosen.

If each ship would target another ship then great. If it's let us watch the whole fleet target one ship at a time then we are back at the kind of strategy where we all stand in a line facing eachother and fire until the other side runs out of soldiers.

Are you telling us that you want each ship to choose a different foe and not try to kill first a foe that is already wounded? Since ships fight until there are destroyed, I don't see the point of not finishing the wounded if they can injure you.

However, Galciv from the getgo has not had a tactical focus - which is unfortunate IMHO. Frogboy has some personal vendetta against tactical - but that's his call as developer. I hope in future versions of galciv that tactical starship combat gets put in.

Star Ranger, did you read Frogboy's earlier post?

Tactical battle detracts from strategy games because the AI almost never is anywhere near as good as a human player at doing them.

*That's* why tactical combat isn't being implemented in GalCiv 2. It's why it's not implemented in a lot of turn-based strategy games (Civilization, anyone?). It's why most real-time strategy games are relatively easy to beat in singleplayer mode--unless you have the difficulty level cranked up to the highest one, where the AI always receives ridiculous cheats and/or bonuses. I've only ever come across 2-3 strategy games (and I've played quite a few over the years) where the combat AI posseses any real degree of competence, and even they were far from perfect.

Unless you count chess, there's really not a computer strategy game in existence where the tactical AI is actually going to give you a challenge over the long run. It's only a matter of time (and usually not very much time, at that) before you figure out the AI's particular weaknesses and how to exploit them. Having truly capable combat AI--or even AI that's just "good enough"--is simply not practical or feasible when it comes to computer games. If given enough resources (particulartly time and money), could Stardock program and insert combat AI into GalCiv 2 that was good enough to give all of us players a run for our money? Sure. But since they *don't* have unlimited time and money, the only we'd ever see an AI that was good enough would be for the game to not be released until we're all in nursing homes, and/or Stardock would have to drive themselves to bankruptcy acquiring the necessary expertise and technology needed.

It's not that Brad has a "vandetta" against tactical combat, nor are any of us here against it either. I would like nothing more than to be able to personally command my fleets against the enemy. But I know that it wouldn't take long before we'd figured out how to blow the AI out of the water 9 times out of 10. At our current stage of computer gaming, the technology and expertise (with all respect to Draginol and Frogboy) needed to produce even a reasonably competent combat AI simply does not exist--at least not at prices a game developer could afford. Yeah, starship combat is pretty to watch (which is why I'm glad GalCiv 2 includes the combat viewer), but how much fun would it really be to personally fight battles that you know you can probably win just because you know the AI's "Achilles heal"? That would get boring in a hurry!

I don't want the whole fleet to be attacking the same target at the same time. That is where strategy comes in. From what I understand the way battles are is both fleets target one ship from the opposing fleet and everybody fires until that ship is gone and then move onto the next one. I would like to see the computer assign a certain number of ships to destroy a target and not be overkill. If ship A can be destroyed by just one ship in the opposing fleet, ship B, without ship B getting heavily damaged then ship B should be the only ship assigned to target ship A. Unless ship B is attacked by another ship before it can fire on ship A or is in trouble for some other reason it should not divert from its assigned target. The computer should assign enough ships based on tech level of attack and defense to overpower the other ship that is being targeted. And of course the other fleet is doing the same thing so the battle will not go as planned by the computer because ships will have to be reasigned during the battle because they are being fired upon by a stronger ship or a stronger group of ships. If the fleets are small I can understand all ships killing the biggest threat, but in large fleet battles it just seems silly. Real battles are chaotic. In modern combat if two navys were fighting eachother one woulden't tell all their ships to attack the strongest enemy ship only, even though three ships could get the job done and the rest of the ships can blow other enemy ships away at the same time. If tactical combat was in the game the player would make all these decisions for their fleet and the computer would only need to do calculations for one fleet.

I would like to see the computer assign a certain number of ships to destroy a target and not be overkill.

Well, it is the case: there isn't any overkill. But the computer doesn't assign all ships before they fire at a target. The algorithm (based on some tests I have made on the beta) is the following:
- Fleet A starts.
- ship A1 in fleet A fires at ship B1 in fleet B. Damage are calculated BEFORE cinematics of firing weapon is displayed
- ship A2 in fleet A choose a target. If B1 is still alive then it is B1. If B1 is dead, then it is B2
- repeat until all ships in fleet A have fired
- proceeds the same way on fleet B.

The key point is that one side fire before the other and ships choose their target based on the result of fire made by other ship in the fleet. You haven't a target assignement of all ships of your fleet before they fire. It just doens't work that way in GC II (and I know, it isn't realistic). The assignement is made ship by ship after that the previous ship has done its damage. So you haven't any overkill. If you want, see it like all ships in fleet A have a greater speed/initiative than any ship in fleet B because they are the attacking side.

@uglycow and all others sceptical (or worse...) about the battle system of GalCiv II:
When I first heard about the tactical battle view in GalCiv II, I was very sceptical as well: "What? You can watch battles, but you can't influence their outcome? What fun could that be? I don't want to watch my ships die mindlessly!". But once having played, I think it's a very nice solution. The battles are fun to watch, and they certainly add suspense to the game. And they're right about one point: I don't know even one game where the AI is equal to the player in tactical battles. Not enabling the player to control the tactical battles forces him to win the game somewhere else, which is a good thing in my opinion. And don't forget, the tactical battle AI sort of plays against itself as it controls both sides, it's a fair thing.

As for the point brought up a couple of times: "Why does my battleship use its fire power to kill a lone fighter first instead of shooting on something more powerful?" While this doesn't sound very realistic in the first moment, it is when you take a closer look on how a space battle might look: Fighters and other small vessels would usually be sent out first to approach the enemy fleet (for recon and to disturb the enemy as early as possible) and thus they are the first to get in trouble as well (similar to the use of screening ships in naval warfare). I think this is realistic and it encourages the player to use a mixture of ship designs simply to get more shots per round - with many smaller ships involved in addition to the big ones.

So relax, and get to play the game asap, you might even like it.

I see a problem when a super advanced battle ship is equipped with six missile battleries, each capable of destroying a small hulled ship on it's on, only to have the ship fire all six at one target. This is where the simple system falls down.

Even ships in WWI and WWII had the ability to engage multiple targets with different gun turrents. Todays ships have some serious electronic muscles and can do even better. Even small US Navy fighter planes can track and engage multiple threats.

One assumes that the threat analysis, tracking, and engagement ability of super advanced combat vessels would be increased even more. Although I am generally comfortable with the current system there certainly are areas that I personally would have no troubles expanding.

I see a problem when a super advanced battle ship is equipped with six missile battleries, each capable of destroying a small hulled ship on it's on, only to have the ship fire all six at one target.

I agree on that one. Perhaps ships should be allowed to use excess firepower (or a part of it) to shoot at the next target having destroyed the last one.

Perhaps ships should be allowed to use excess firepower (or a part of it) to shoot at the next target having destroyed the last one.

That might be tricky since the huge excess of power might allow to kill the ennemy ship: the attacker rolls a random number between 1 and the total attack value of the kind of weapon. So you get more chance to hit (defender rolling below) and inflict more damages (difference between attacker roll and defender roll).

Well, all this forum fighting is definitely counterproductive. I admit I suggested a different system myself but this "it's as I say or it's crap" approach is definitely wrong.

This game is obviously designed for the grand strategy and combat is very simplyfied. I support this simplyfied combat more than giving the human player a huge advantage which he/she in most combat games has. This way both the player and the AI have the same chances period. I agree there is little tactics involved but - use strategy so that the existing system will lead to victory.

On this distribution of firepower; if you are unable to knock out certain ship systems, attack parts of ships, disable the ships etc., than the distribution is useless. I'm certain the developers will take care that your big guns attack the biggest enemy and than it is pounded untill it croaks. So that the the position described earlyer (battleship emptying it's arsenal on a fighter) is rare. The important part is that it is equally likely to happen both to you and the AI.

How about this for a compromise idea? This idea is ganked off the old SNES game Ogre Battle. This is probably too late for GC2 regular, but maybe the expansion or GC3.

You get a choice on attack orders.
First (pick randomly)
Leader (pick the flagship)
Strongest (pick the strongest enemy ship)
Weakest (pick off the weakest enemy ship)

On the defense side, I'd allow ships to be escorts, and give defense to the entire fleet, and have a chance of being battled instead of the flagship.

That might be tricky since the huge excess of power might allow to kill the ennemy ship: the attacker rolls a random number between 1 and the total attack value of the kind of weapon. So you get more chance to hit (defender rolling below) and inflict more damages (difference between attacker roll and defender roll).

I'm not sure to have understood your point.
My suggestion would be to let each ship attack the enemy (one attack roll), and if it successfully destroys the first target (attack roll higher than defense roll) then the excess attack points or a part of them (half of it?) should be applied on a different target to damage or even destroy this one. A change of target, area damage or however you want to call it.

A couple of things people should know about Brad (Frogboy):

# He was the top ranked Total Annihilation player in the world on Boneyards.net for over a year.

# He was in the top 10 best players on Battle.net during the Starcraft beta

# He was in PGL (Professional Gamer's League) on a number of strategy games.

# He was in the top 100 in the Warcraft 3 beta and top 10 as a the human faction.

So he knows strategy and he puts his knowledge into the computer AI in the game.

Individual battles are a very small part of the game. Player controlled tactical battles would make it likely that there'd be some "trick" that would allow mediocre strategy gamers to win because they knew how to game the tactical battles. Anyone remember the gaming of the alien diplomacy in GalCiv I?

I have a question about starship battles that I don't think has been specifically addressed: Do opposing ships fire at each other simultaneously, or does one side fire first? And if so, what determines which side gets to go first?

I have a question about starship battles that I don't think has been specifically addressed: Do opposing ships fire at each other simultaneously, or does one side fire first? And if so, what determines which side gets to go first?

The attacker's ships fire first, then any remaining defenders return fire, continuing back and forth in this fashion until one side is annihilated.

I can't help but think that the way the ship combat algorithm works is great. I haven't played, but by reading posts from people like Peace Phoenix, I can see how to take advantage of such a system. I was also very sceptical when I first got wind of the system. It seemed fighters were the obvious choice. But now that I understand how it really works, there is no point in worrying about excess damage etc.

Take this for example. If excess damage was to be carried over to the next target, then fighters would be useless. Build a battleship, load it to the max with weapons. Get into combat with 10 fighters. Step one, battleship fires. Countless fighters die. Step two, remaining fighters fire and do marginal damage. Step three, battleship fires and kill the rest of the fighters. If it was like this, everything would be ruined. There would be no reason to build anything except for the largest ships available. It wouldn't be much better than the original game.

On the other hand. You know have the ability to designt your own ships!!! If an enemy has a disposition for fighters, then increase your defences and reduce your offence. That way, you still can kill a fighter but you can last longer against a lot of them. Or if your enemy has heavily armed large ships, then build fighters to compliment your large ships, or just fighters alone. The possabilities are endless. Having any kind of tactical control would make the game too easy. Now, there is even in deapth strategy at the ship construction level. I haven't even played this game, but my orriginal doubts have been all but eliminated. I am sure that when the rest of us get to play the game we will be pleasently suprised.

The attacker's ships fire first, then any remaining defenders return fire, continuing back and forth in this fashion until one side is annihilated.

Hmm.... I admit that bothers me a little. I wonder why Stardock is doing it that way. Not being a programmer, I don't understand why opposing fleets couldn't fire simultaneously. Can anyone answer this for me?

Hmm.... I admit that bothers me a little. I wonder why Stardock is doing it that way. Not being a programmer, I don't understand why opposing fleets couldn't fire simultaneously. Can anyone answer this for me?

Becouse it's TURN based, not real time. And it would be impossible to calculate who destroyed whom first and the destroyed ship shouldn't fire at all...

I do hate it that there is no retreat for the loosing side. Total annihilation is a bad system.

but how much fun would it really be to personally fight battles that you know you can probably win just because you know the AI's "Achilles heal"? That would get boring in a hurry

DId you read my first statement Citizen Martok - Ever heard of Moo 2? One of the best selling games of all time. Obviously people didn't think it was that boring! Hell there are more people on the net who play old version of moo 1 and moo2 than gal civ itself!


Noone goes into tactical games thinking there is a AI that will be as smart as a human - but that's why there are other factors to "balence" the game out - AI bonuses to production, combat, etc.

A couple of things people should know about Brad (Frogboy): # He was the top ranked Total Annihilation player in the world on Boneyards.net for over a year. # He was in the top 10 best players on Battle.net during the Starcraft beta # He was in PGL (Professional Gamer's League) on a number of strategy games. # He was in the top 100 in the Warcraft 3 beta and top 10 as a the human faction. So he knows strategy and he puts his knowledge into the computer AI in the game.

Big F'en deal. When I see "stats" such as these someone obviously feels the need to justify himself. Build a good game and that's all the justification you need.

For the record - I don't have anything personal against Frogboy - I'm just not a fan of his decision not to put tactical combat. HIs justification of not putting it in the game is also weak - if I wanted a pure strategy game I'll play chess. But as I said - its his call.

DId you read my first statement Citizen Martok - Ever heard of Moo 2? One of the best selling games of all time. Obviously people didn't think it was that boring! Hell there are more people on the net who play old version of moo 1 and moo2 than gal civ itself!

That's unlikely.  I realize you're a MOO fan (as I am too) but you are vastly overestimating the fanbase at this point.

Moreover, I don't think MOO2, even with updated graphics, would get cut the slack today that it did back then.  The tactical battles in MOO2 were, even for the time, very problematic because most players knew exploits that allowed very uneven battles.  And the end game consisted of a genocide race as each player went from planet to planet exterminating as fast as they could.

And Star Ranger, I don't really care whether you like my decision or not.  Your behavior is borderline trolling.   If you want to go play MOO so bad, go play it and leave us alone.