Fundamentals of Ship Combat

Would it be possible, if those were included, to make them a user-selectable thing? In other words, I could choose whether I wanted to control every aspect of battle, or just let the AI handle it like it does now.

in many ways it would be nice , but over time (having made a similar post myself early on) i have come to realise that this game is unique in many ways-which is what we are all after anyway isn't it? MOO4 etc will no doubt have whizzy 3d combat and tactics.

The way i see it is that in GalCiv you will win battles as you have more firepower-pure and simple. It is not a shooter. How do you get more firepower? You invest in research, infrastructure, diplomacy, influence, economics and trade. The reward is victoty, yes - in battle and elsewhere but the battle itself is simply the final punctuation all be it a satisfying affirmation of successful investment.

In many ways to start fiddling about with tactical battles - which can only be imitations of what has been done many times before (and perhaps very very well in some cases) seems contrary to what the guys are after from what i can see.

s

There's nothing particularly original in current battle system. One could say that its roots lay in ancient board games where players thru dice to determine battle outcomes.
Also, it's important to realize that those 3 features I listed above are very fundamental concepts. It is possible to define them in such a way that the game will feel very unique. Take ship customization for example, there are many ways of handling the way you put equipment on a ship, and many ways of doing each equipment item. A variety of special complementary and mutually exclusive relationships can be established.

With the current ship battle system, all the "item" relationships are complementary. And by that I mean all improvements, advances, and abilities add together without interfering with one another. This is a very simplistic approach to design (whatever that design may be), there is no choice for player to make. There's only 1 option. And that isn't good for a strategy game. It leads to "unit absolutism" - when one type of unit dominates all other types of units in all areas of combat. This greatly reduces the potential for strategy in the game.

And it's certainly not realistic. If real world had "unit absolutism", then it would go something like this: A tank is more powerful than a soldier, therefore all we need to build is tanks. Sure, tanks cost more, you can equip 100 soldiers for price of 1 tank. But if you throw those soldiers on a tank one by one, tank will kill them all. Therefore, an army doesn't any soldiers if it can build tanks.
I don't need to explain why that is wrong, it should be obvious. The same common sense thought should be applied to a strategy game. Sure, a game is not meant to be like real world. But that's not the point, the point is that there exists a set of logical rules that imply strategy. The more rules you have, and the more complex those rules are, the more strategy you get. (assuming that the rules are properly made)

' It leads to "unit absolutism" - when one type of unit dominates all other types of units in all areas of combat. This greatly reduces the potential for strategy in the game.'

Except for the fact that you usually have to intentionally not win to get to this point, and under those conditions, this happens in games with customizable ships too. I have yet to see a game of MoO2 where winning that late in the game wasn't simply a matter of dumping more Stellar Coverters onto ships that seem that they shouldn't be able to use them in the first place.

I understand your point, but I believe that any customization is better than no customization at all. Sure, you may end up with the "absolute unit" sooner or later. But the "later" it happens, the better.

The goal here is not to make a perfectly balanced combat, it's impossible to "make all units equal". The emphasis should be on providing several different ways of winning a battle. The game as a whole has several ways of winning: conquest, economic, political, etc. I suggest the same methods should be applied to actual battle victory. This can be achieved thru unit customization and unit specialization. Player needs to have mutually exclusive choices, that's where true decision making beginning.

Think of the "rock-scissors-paper" game. Each one has its own advantage and disadvantage, there’s no “absolute unit” here. Of course it’s a simplified example and I’m not suggesting that we should make all units work like that. I think the best solution is to mix the 2 principles: have complementary and mutually exclusive unit strengths/abilities. To stick with the "rock-scissors-paper" example, complementary strengths would go like this: rock -> rock+1 -> rock+2
So there are different types of rock, and maybe if one rock is considerably more “advanced” than paper, then that rock could beat paper.
I have worked out an elegant battle system based on these principles, if anyone wants I can explain it here.

In GalCiv, the point of the game is to run a civilization. Tactical combat is considered a relatively minor aspect to the game.

There are real perils to alternatives:

Unit stacking (ala MOO, HOMM):
Result: Each side runs around with one or two mega fleet/armies.

In depth tactical battles (ala MOO):
Development resources are invested in ensuring that tactical combat is "professionally" done (i.e. 3D graphics, good special effects, good AI for enemy ships in combat, lots of itneresting modules to put on ships). At that point, it's not GalCiv, it's a MOO clone.

People who want MOO should get MOO.

I don't subscribe to rock-paper-scissors. I deplore it as a game mechanic.

History does not support it. In World War II, the allies won not because of superior tactics but rather superior logistics, superior production, superior efficiency, superior technology in key areas.

That is what GalCiv's goal is. As much as I enjoyed putting a black hole generator on my star ship in MOO2 and watching them battle it out, that's not what Galactic Civilizations is about.

In GalCiv units do have trade offs. They have different amounts of range. They have different production costs. They have different maint. costs. But the goal is not to create a combined arms fleet. Not because combined arms isn't fun and not because it isn't tactically importnat, but because it has nothing to do with the rise and fall of civilizations.

Every game minute that a player has to spend making sure that their carrier is protected by fighter escort with a few heavy battle cruisers at the edges and frigates to screen enemy units is a minute that the player isn't going to be spending on diplomacy or trade or culture or whatever.

Or put another way, if so much grand emphasis were put on the tactical battles, then the other aspects of the game would look mighty weak indeed.

My interest in creating a strategy game is a game where you feel like you're creating history. And that's specifically why we have stayed away from creating tactical battles. I didn't want to see the focus of the game be so tactically oriented.

I don't agree with you, but I am not gonna push my points further. I wonder what galciv developers think about this. Maybe they like the idea but didn't add it cause they don't have time.

Master Lame,

Guess what!!! Brad (Frogboy) Wardel is the originator/owner/project developer/over all head honcho developer of GalCiv. It is his invention, his product, his baby. He is the president/CEO of Stardock.

Indeed he is. And I agree with his opinion regarding it fully. For the reasons he specified as well.

I think Brad's best point seems to have been ignored...these are two completely different games, and I think we'd all like to keep them that way. I can't speak for everyone, but for me, a big draw to this game is simply the fact that it's SO different from other games out there. I like the fact that it isn't so tactically-oriented...if I wanted that, I'd buy a different game (MOO or whatever).

I'll stop before I get too comfortable on my soapbox.

Brad is right of course- in that he has too be its his baby!

I tend to agree with Brads philosophy (I was not sure at frst as I don't think I totally understood it as I do now.)

However two fresh points (i hope!):

It is not all about preference. I love tactical wargames, I play them all the time. But I have been playing computer games since the first Amiga and have in a sense grown tired or formula games. The thing that inspires me about GalCiv is encapsulated in Brad's word's above, victory is achieved through total management of the empire and tactical combat is (as in real life!!) simply a consequence of teh inevitable strategic elements - resources/logistics and strategy.

Secondly it is not strictly true that the tactical combat is that one dimentional. If you look at your forrces one by one - then yes, but if you look at your total OOB so to say you will win overal if you have the best combination of forces - never mind each individual unit encounter - strategy again, realistic again! yes a Cromwell tank will kill a german infantryman time and again - until the King Tiger comes round the corner! Bult with superior technology. Until they run out of King Tigers that is- due to inferior resources!

Each battle is a combination of one-on-one micro encounters. With a strategic overlay. In the field Tactics play a part in 2-d warfare (on the ground) but will it in space? Or does it eben in the air today where air warfare winners simply have more and better aircraft. And better resources to support them.

Also don't forget the great success that GalCiv/OS2 had over MOO2 in 1994/5. The most recent review of GalCiv that Brad posted a link to in the GalCiv home site (see the news items on the galciv.com home page) refers to that success. And GalCiv/OS2 did not have the separate space combat that MOO 2 did. Yes, I like the combat sequence MOO 2 had, but I still liked GalCiv/OS2 better than MOO even though GC did not have the space battle sequence. GC/OS2 had more depth to the over all game, as I expect the new GC will have more depth over MOO 3. (IMO the new GC already exceeds GC/OS2 in depth.)

ok, I can live with that. For some reason, this game seems like a cross breed between Heros of Might & Magic and MOO.

Anyway, I have a few other ship combat ideas:

Missiles! why do I get the impression that nobody uses missiles? At least the technologies I discover seem to focus on energy guns alone.

Ranged attacks. Is there any chance you could have a sort of artillery or long range missiles in game?

Here's a big idea:
Why not add Engineering Department along with the Science Department?
As of now, the technologies researched by scientists are rather general. The Engineering department could take existing technologies and either
1) Improve quality of existing items
2) Create a new item

For example, engineers could come up with an upgrade for Fusion Power Plant, increasing its efficiency by a few %, or decreasing its cost.
Engineers could come up with a new weapon design that adds some combat bonus.
However, I'm not sure if this idea would work well with current ship combat model. It would be best suited for a game with ship customization and specialization.

Denis,

Please read some of the threads on influence, resources, technology etc. Please don't make the same mistake I did at first and focus on the bang and boom. Have a leasurely scan around other threads and get an empathy with the game; This game is NOT about warfare.

steevo

I agree with Brad. The game is actually working fairly well at the current stage as what it is fully intended to be. That is a strategy game where you design and build a superior civilization. It's all about resource management!

'Missiles! why do I get the impression that nobody uses missiles? At least the technologies I discover seem to focus on energy guns alone.'

Missile arn't very relevant after a certain point.

Between ECM, energy weapons destroying them midflight, and the necessity for an exitpoint and/or mountpoint for them creating glaringly obvious and vulnerable strikepoints, they really don't have much viability.

hmm, I'm pretty sure missiles will dominate space combat in the future. I'm willing to go into logical explanations if you are willing to argue using logic and science. Last semester I finished a "discrete mathematics" class, it's basically about propositional logic and proofs. It'd be kinda fun to try apply it in real life, interested?

overall I'm dissappointed with how people on these forums react to combat ideas. They often go against my common sense.

Master Lame some of your suggestion have been good if the focus was on combat. Galciv is not a combat game. It is an empire building game in which combat can play a part. There was a lot of discussion early on about the direction the game would take. Brad (Frogboy) put a lot of detail into what he envisioned the game would be
and why he did not want the combat to become tactical.
The beta has just started to implement some of the things Brad envisioned and at the moment has a combat focus because not all the features are in. I expect you will notice a big difference in beta 3. Please don't lose heart if a lot of the reactions are negative .
keep the suggestions coming just adjust your thinking a little to empire building and not just warfare.
Hope this helps.

Who knows? One of the things I like about GalCiv is it's potential to grow... and keep growing. Maybe after the game is out, and if anyone still thinks it needs it, a more in depth battle system might be put in? I personally like the "board game" way it is now... but I am a board game freak, so maybe I don't count...

Here is an article I wrote about what GalCiv is all about a long long time ago:

http://www.galciv.com/encyclopedia/philosophy.htm

'I personally like the "board game" way it is now... but I am a board game freak, so maybe I don't count...'

I would have to think that Shrapnel Games would contend that to not be the case.

I'll also assume I don't have to comment on Stardock's apparent thoughts thereof.