With any of these suggestions its a large diversion from the path they set out on though, and I'm doubtful SD will make the change out of fear of what the 'purists' will say. I think we can blame MoO3 for creating those nutso purists in the first place I think I'm missing the connection between
You also forget Spaceward HO. I never actually played that one. The cowboy theme (Stetson's on colonized planets, etc...) put me off. From the reviews I read, it seemed sortof related to Stellar Conquest, but perhaps even simpler. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FF
I still don't think SD needs to add in tac combat for any of their GC titles, but I think that they should take another look at the tradeoff between the free movement system, and a warp lane type system. Honestly I think the AI would be that much stronger as well if they moved to a more restricted system.
would love to see some elements from starfire in a PC game, that tactical system was really nice I thought, simple, yet detailed enough to provide many different options. The tactical system in SEIII was obviously based on Starfire, although greatly simplified and played out in a tiny sandbox (the idea of getting "cornered" in a space battle i
Some form of planetary conquest wherein population are not interchangable with troops, the original population of the planet is not destroyed but rather retains its identity and has to be garrisoned to maintain control. Honestly, the way it is now really kills my enjoyment of the game. Briefly, I see several ways to fix it... 1) Eliminate the troop transports & ground combat (perhaps as a game setup option so those who like it as it is st
I kinda feel sorry for the MOO/MOO2 fans as they clearly want more of the same and MOO3 seems not to have hit the spot. I don't know whether anyone is making a MOO4 but it seems that a significant number of the fans see this game as the backbone to "MOO4" and hence request features they want to turn Gal Civ II into that game, so
Oh god no, please. Tactical combat, the way most games have it designed is not tactical at all. Space Empires 4 for example. The player with the faster ship wins unscathed, namely because it's one of the "my turn/your turn" set-ups. All I have to do is end my ship's turn one square out of range of the enemy. <br/
He's right, though. If you can't do anything with them at all, there is no point to having them. Getting in the old way back machine, the granddaddy of the all Stellar Conquest only told you the usable planets. They had orbit numbers with gaps that indicated the existance of other, unuable, planets. The unusable ones just didn't show up. I'm not all that sure putting the usable ones on the map is the best solution, either. Maybe more
I've had the game about a week, and I like a lot of things about it. Actually, I was having a great time, right up until I decided to launch a war of aggression. However, I'm very disappointed by how ground combat has been implimented - specifically that it uses population for soldiers. I mean, in WWII the Germans didn't send 10's of millions of men, women & children into France to fight to the death against the 10's of millions of French men, women
