Tactical Fleet Combat is Required!

Nice flamebait post. The immense positive feedback this game has received is enough to rebutt your pathetic claims. Time to head back to the MOO forums, weasel! And try to convince yourself for the n^th time that MOO3 really isn't all that bad!

(... and don't let the door hit you on the way out)

non-starter? Nope. Lets see definition of Tactical Combat in a game like this is:

1: way to turn 10 hours of game play into 50 hours of game play for no good purpose.

2: way to get another edge on the computer AI because no computer AI plays tactical combat effectively (witness Age of Wonders, MOO 1 & 2, etc.

3: waste of code since 9 out of 10 battles are preordained (because usually the attacker doesn't attack unless he already knows he's going to win). Meaning the battle is only interesting for those fractions when the outcome is in doubt.

4: An exercize in frustration as it takes 15 minutes for your invincible battle ship to huntdown and kill the 999 fighters the computer is using.

5: Bad sim design since the emperor of the galaxy should not be micromanaging his ships...that's what admirals and captains are for.

I could go on...but it really isn't necessary.
Verdict: Waste o' time.

the game is only half percent done, that might be a good thing to consider dumbass

now everybody be good and let this post fall down the queue. there's absolutely no point in replying to it.

cheers

h

No, I am afraid you are wrong, and could possibly be trolling. Stardock set out to create Civ In Space I believe, and they succeeded marvelously. The LAST thing we need is another game with RTS type combat. Funny how people didn't get tired of Civ 1, 2 & 3, Call to Power, Galciv 1.0 or Alpha Centauri, none of which had tactical combat.

This will do nicely for the next year or two

no but seriously the odd of winning could be decreased if you add some of the unconventionnal tactics: like kamikaze, camouflage, hit and run tactics, propaganda etc...

SE 3 had tactical combat, and it was cool for the first 10 battles, but after that I always hit the auto-fight button because it comes out the same anyways. The only thing it did was pull away from the overall picture of the game and give you more micro-managing

It doesn't make any sense for a game that is supposed to be based around top-down decision making to have TACTICAL combat. That's why it has no place in a game like this or especially moo3 which (incorrectly) hails itself as the gamer's saviour from micromanagement. Tactical combat IS micromanagement.

LOL Silvermane you too funny- go back and play Aascendancy then.

~SDC~

The only TBS game I enjoyed the tactical combat from was Age of Wonders 2. How you battled it out was not predetermined, and it was a blast. Most games that implement tactical combat tho.. boring city.

Tell me.. how many battles do you REALLY get into that are so close, your moving your many ships around will make a difference? It is not many. And most of *those* fights are not fought, since most people avoid fights they know they have a good chance of losing.

Keep your tactical combat.. I like this game just as it it. LOL

fleabitfox

...and when you invade, the game should switch into a futuristic C&C type RTS where you control each unit in your invasion force individually...

~SDC~

that would be cool and having some kind of rpg inside of it would be good as well

"...and when you invade, the game should switch into a futuristic C&C type RTS where you control each unit in your invasion force individually..."

SWEET! And a social improvement could be a dance hall that, when built, would allow the player to enjoy a "Britney's Dance Beat"-style minigame! Morale out the wazoo!

~SDC~

Actually, I was hoping the game would switch into some kind of Wing Commander or Tie Fighter clone.

Yes, and then when you research you need to actually go into a laboratory perspective al Sims and try to get all your scientists to cooperate (not mate) until they eventually invent your tech.

~SDC~

"...and when you invade, the game should switch into a futuristic C&C type RTS where you control each unit in your invasion force individually..."

Could we also have RPG-style character creation for the player character (Emperor)? These things wouldn't bloat the game design, not at all... no really, they wouldn't. I swear. Why are you looking at me all funny?

- Ash

~SDC~

LOL!

I always laugh at people that think if they don't have a seperate map to see their little men/ships/beasts/whatever duke it out on, there is no tactical.

You've got your tactical on your main map. You've got to manueaver for advantage. That's tactics. D'uh!

You want RTS? Play an RTS game. There is no point in StarDock wasting their time adding in something that will only be used a handful of times by its customers, and then forgotten. Or worse yet, something that takes away from the players fun because they have to handle it themselves so that they can get their little over matched ships to flee and survive, which only happens if the user does it themselves. (The latest being Moo3, out of a huge string of games with RTS Tactical mode)

Get over your MoOing. Gal Civ is a great game. But its no super detailed always drilling down MoO3.

Star Pilot hit it in the head, IMHO. All the people that complain about lack of tactics aren't, really. There's plenty of battle tactics that can make or break your attack strategy. PLENTY. All these people want is 1337 GUNZ0RXXX. Wheee, let's have tactical so we can have 5 buttons, all names somethingsomething Mark XIII so we can click them and see the nice P4RTICL0RZ FXXXORZ

*sigh*

Astro

Tactical combat would completely ruin this game. GalCiv is Civilziation in space. GalCiv is 100% strategy. Tactical combat as no role whatsoever. There are plenty of games out there with tactical combat, buy one and enjoy. I am soooo glad StarDock was smart enough not to add a feature that belongs in real-time strategy games. Vive la difference! <-- I'm speaking "Freedom".

What a weak bunch of knee-jerk reactive replies I got from an important and reasonable suggestion. Ok, let me try to respond to some of these.

"The immense positive feedback this game has received is enough to rebutt your pathetic claims."

It's a good game vs it's a bad is irrelevent. The game is what it is. I'm trying to get a feature that will enable me to enjoy it more into the game.

It really aggrevates me that many years after Master of Orion II came out, no turn based space strategy game has come close to MOO II, let alone advanced the state of the art. MOO II had shields, armor, structure and weapons that pierced / focused on each creating a rock/paper/scissors tactical situation. I used to rotate my ships to protect weak shields. Squadrens of fighters launching from planets, planetary missile bases, anti-missile rockets, star bases. The battles in MOO II were awesome. Why can't any new games even come close?


" Valamir"

None of those 'problems' are valid. The battles can be fast and exciting. MOO 2 had the auto-resolve feature which eliminated the tedium. Your there, your attacking, it's exciting to fight it out, not tedious.

The current combat system:

"A ship with an attack of 10 attacking a ship with a defense of 5 doing 5 HP of damage."

was ok for the 80's, but it's far to simplistic and boring for a modern computer game. It's like number crunching instead of an exciting fight.


"Aerain"

If your saying they plan on adding tactical combat, then great. Remember, I bought the game and am playing it. I'm a fan, not a detractor. I want them to advance it. I'm just afraid they are going to focus scarce development resources on foolish features instead of filling what, for me, is a major omission.

"Horatio"
If you don't like this conversation, then please stay out of it.


"Khrest"
I agree. The last thing I want is another RTS type game. I don't really like them. I also don't really like the Civ type games. What I really want is an worthy successor to MOO II. I've tried almost every turn-based space game since and they all fall short. The ability to design ships and upgrade them is a minimum requirement. It's pathetic to have a massive technology tree that has no effect on the game other than to advance numbers, like production % or repair %. The developers need to create a game engine that implements the technologies in more meaningful ways.

"Gehenna_CA"
You make it sound like there are hundreds of battles going on and the player couldn't possibly manage them all. Nonesense. You are currently watching all the battles. It's just that they are implemented in a very simplistic way. Look at it incrementally; wouldn't it be nice if ships with different weapons had a different graphic effect when they fired. Extend that concept and the game becomes better.

"jaustin1", "padlock", "Dearmad"
What I'm suggesting is not impossible or unrealistic. They don't even have to do any original thinking. Even a simplified version of what's been done before would be better than what we have now. Those land invasions are a complete joke. At lease in MOO II you could see the guys shooting at each other and watch the size of each force dwindle until one side was defeated. The land battles in Imperium Galactica were the best of breed that I played. You guys need to be thinking of creative solutions instead of saying "Oh, it can't be done; Oh, it's too hard."

I hope one of the designers sees this post and I'm not just wasting my time with a bunch of 14 year olds.

Cheers,
Leto Silvermane

"I hope one of the designers sees this post"

Seeing as how one of them has already responded to it, I'd say it's a given. As for your comments, the designers have toned down the action of the game to develop other areas of the gameplay, and I very much doubt they will include it now, as it was never part of thier original design.

I would actully think the game would be less fun with tactical combat, I have always enjoyed the Civ type of games where the focus is on strategy and empire building and not on just combat.
The way combat is handled in GalCiv is great, its quick and it gets the job done and give you time to focus on more important things... Like trying to figure out how feed the 64 BILLION people of my class 46 planet Andersona... (*sigh* Kondoms people, kondoms!!)

/Andreas

Dude, no chance the developers will take you seriously when you're telling them what's required in *their* game or calling *their* game a non-starter. That's just rude, and not effective if you sincerely hope to see a change made. A suggestion, or a question as to why they didn't include a feature that seems perfectly like a good fit to you, is a basic social skill most of learn in grade school. Unfortunately, it all too often goes out the window when we can hide behind the internet and be anonymous.
If you don't like civ-type games, then you don't like galciv (note the similarity of the titles?) it is a civ-type game. If you think moo2 is the greatest, play it, no ones stopping you. But it doesn't mean other style games are of lesser value, you just don't like them as much. Other people do, and they will probably like galciv too.
Have you seen the 'how old is a galciv player?' thread? Not a lot of 14 year olds.
Frogboy, the lead designer, posted above and gave his response to your oh-so-sincere 'request', so you can see how far your style has gotten you.

Cheers

~SDC~

Leto: "Your there, your attacking, it's exciting to fight it out, not tedious."

The bottom line that you're missing: TO YOU. Never assume that what you find fun and exciting is what someone else (or a group of someone elses) will find fun and exciting. Tactical combat may be what makes the game exciting to you, but there are myriad voices here that disagree, and they are no more right or wrong than you are. Number crunching was good enough for the 80s, and it's still good enough for me (and, apparently, a lot of the other people here). I don't need the visual element of a fight to make it exciting; I get enough enjoyment out of the strategy of maximizing those numbers before the fight through planning my tech research, battling for the galactic resources, and managing my economy to support the most ship-improving social projects that I can. Combat the way it is now is more than exciting enough for me.

"What I really want is an worthy successor to MOO II."

I don't believe this game ever promised to be that. To then come on these boards and protest for major game design overhauls and additions to make GalCiv into something it never had ambitions to be is slightly naive. If MOO2 is so perfect for you (which you're quite justified in believing; it is a great game), stick with it. The best games need no successors, for they are fun forever.

"The developers need to create a game engine that implements the technologies in more meaningful ways."

You mean more visual ways. The tech tree does everything you described in that paragraph, only it does it by increasing a number, not by changing a particle effect. Ships DO upgrade in GalCiv -- they do it automatically, every time you research a new weapon/shield/armour/engine/etc. That's what those numbers are: a non-visual representation of ship upgrades. You want a more visual game; GalCiv is not that. I highly doubt it is going to BECOME that.

"You make it sound like there are hundreds of battles going on and the player couldn't possibly manage them all. Nonesense. You are currently watching all the battles."

Have you played on Gigantic? I haven't, but I've played on Medium, and I've had a dozen fights in one turn several times. Thinking of how many fights I could have at once on Gigantic, and then having to consider how LONG it would take me to micromanage each fight scares me witless. Watching all the battles takes FAR less time than the tactical combat you propose, and that is the problem. This way, dozens of battles will pass in mere seconds; in MOO2-style combat, dozens of battles would take many minutes. And arguing that the auto-resolve solves this, when you're entire argument is that we should have the kind of combat that ISN'T auto-resolved, is a non-starter.

- Ash

~SDC~

Sigh, another dry, half-implemented, 4X space game with lame graphics and sound and a legion of grognards defending it...

I guess I'll just have to hope some other company can create a worthy successor to Master of Orion II.

I'll play GalCiv a couple of times to try and get my money's worth and then throw the CD on the pile of mediocre games in the closet.

Leto