Will we be getting turn based or real time tactical combat ?
I presume we are getting tactical combat in the series finally.
I also vote no on tactical combat - invariably this ends up being a way for people to exploit a loophole in the tactical system to make up for abysmal strategy or insufficient technological development. I'd vastly prefer to observe from a strategic point of view and watch the battle play out. At best I'd like to give my fleet commanders instructions such as "massive aggression", "total defense", "preserve force", "maximize damage", "strikecraft attack only" or somesuch. Basically to choose between AI profiles to be used within the resolution of the fight.
Edit: while I was thinking about it, it occurred to me that it would be nice to designate certain ship types as needing protection, and others as being defenders, etc. For example, a main carrier that is mostly hangar space might commit less to defenses - but dedicated escorts in the fleet might be able to use their defenses to aid ships "in need of protection". That would be a cool modifier to the existing system.
T
I wouldn't be opposed to more fleet level options regarding stance, etc...as long as they are set before combat begins.
I am hoping for a better Combat & Ship Design System (I don´t mean the optical Ship design) for GalCivIII.
1. Yes, it would. I don't see the problem in that. It would at the same time, expand the sales potential of the game. Remember, each GC game has had pretty good sales potential and the budgets have been progressively increasing as the title has gotten more popular.
2. I fail to see how this is a problem. I do not see any major shortcomings in the strategic aspect of GC2 other than what I described earlier.
3. To some extent, all games are already like that. They are about a clash of ships. Whether you see it in battle viewer or whether you control it, it's already a clash of ships.
As indicated, it would increase the cost of the game, but at the same time, it would increase the sales potential. As for pushback, it would come down to how well implemented the system was. If it was poorly implemented, then yes, I would expect a backlash. But if it were well implemented, well, I think it would have the potential to greatly add to the game.
I'm calling for a level of sophistication comparable to GC2 in the strategic layer with tactical combat, not a "dumbing down" - heck they could re-use some of the assets from GC2 where appropriate.
I'm fine either way but I like to play large maps and end up in a lot of fights and the thought of micromanaging hundreds of tactical battles per game is oppressing, so I lean towards no tactical due to the scale of the game.
Tactical is good in a game like FELH or Eador where you mostly use hero-lead armies, it's more RPG-like, and the battles are somewhat more on a personal level.
I'll be interested to see what take on the many systems they end up going with.
1. Yes, or maybe not so significantly, depending on how simple they start with its first iteration.
2. Yes, or No, depending on how well staffed they are and how much time has to be spent with the more basic mechanics of the game code. (Or in how much of a factor Murphy plays.)
3. No. That will never happen. If you have nothing more than a clash of fleets, all you have is a shoot-em-up. That is NOT Galciv. Any tactical aspect of the game MUST be in support of its strategic aspects.
I remember having this same debate during the external Alpha and the Beta of GC2, and I remember arguing against the ship battles in any form. SD added the battle viewer, I think, mostly because of all the begs and pleads for ship battles, and the battle viewer has changed my mind about having more control over ship battles.
I am also wondering if another factor is weighing in on this discussion. Let me start this one by stating my preferences in playing GC: I prefer conquest victories to the exclusion of all the other types of victories available in GC1 or GC2. So could we please start a poll of the sort, "I prefer conquest victories and want tactical battles" or "I prefer cultural and technology victories and do not want tactical battles" or <<< name your combinations >>>. I think we will all get a better understanding of each others viewpoints on this issue if we do this.
I can say that I most do non-conquest victories but would certainly not be against tactical combat.
At least for myself, I'm pretty sure that's not a factor. My preferred victory type is usually dictated by roleplaying (so I usually do conquest victories as the Drengin, but not so much as a good civilization), which has no bearing on my feelings about tactical combat.
The reason I never played Gal Civ 2 was the unbelievably awful combat. I dont mean the lack of tactical combat but the almost comically horrible "put 1 point in anti lasers to counter 1 point in lasers" rock paper scissors system and ships float around in circles like dead fish in a tank randomly firing off weapons.
Tactical combat may not be a good fit for GalCiv3 but please fix the weapons and combat movies. The ships should be in formations you pick and actually do passes/strafing runs at each other.
This system would not only be more realistic and cool looking but allow for a more nuanced and rewarding weapon systems. Instead of just damage and hp, you could add weapon ranges, cones of fire, burst weapons. Really fast ships could attack on a slightly beneficial angle.
My guess is that if they do include tactical combat, the player will have the option in the game setup to toggle tactical combat on or off in its entirety for that particular game. That way, the strategic purists can have the game like they like it and the arm-chair fleet admirals can have it their way. See? Its like politics! We all win!
...and we're certainly drawing upon bits and pieces from the Master of Orion series as we look to enhance the capabilities of our combat portion in our game. - Toadman
I came to GalCiv from MOO originally. I am for tactical combat, but in no way to the almost painfull endgame level MOO2 had it.
More emphasis on ship design, not this piece adds overal armor, but more of put a bunch of plate armor in the front and keep your nose pointed to the action, so what is where is actually important. So Fore/Aft/port/starboard/dorsal/ventral matters. The compoinent level of control from MOO2 was great **SOMETIMES** and others it was in the way, or flat out malfunctioned. Formations, and some basic tactics would be ideal. I do **NOT** want this to be RTS by any means, a big part of the fun of TBS games is being able to sit here and really think about how to approach a issue the best way, to me combat is another of those situations. I am not looking to be a fighter pilot and certainly not wanting to make ships/fleets that are zerging each other, or the hey which gun should I fire first thing either, but a level of tactical control, the admiral from a fleet kinda of thing.
An whatever/however it is implimented, leave the movie of the battle at the end, and please improve on it some so I am not seeing complete facepalm "tactics" being used in combat. But I always really enjoyed the movie of the battl;e aspect, heck since the mid 90's I wanted that at the end of a MOO battle
Is that supposed to be Frogboy? 'cause being called a Toad might be an insult to such an amphibian. Being called a man might be something new and interesting, though; we'll see how he likes it.
It's probably going to be a combination of both, and this thread will be 200 pages of wasted debate.
????
Maybe, but hopefully not. Regardless, Stardock has already decided what they are going to do and probably have it 90% coded already, and this will be 200 pages of wasted debate.
Just my $.02:GalCiv II was great in its own way and if it didn't appeal to certain people that's fine. Just like COD doesn't appeal to RTS fans, lets not encourage making this something that it's not. When you attempt to be a jack of all trades you end up being a master of none and that applies to everything.Could the fleet combat use an upgrade or set of new eyes? Sure, and I think that's exactly what we're going to get. Until we get confirmation of what we're working with its still too early to have armchair arguments on what would be better. People have voiced their opinion on what they want but I don't think we're really looking at the scope of our development team. Based solely on assumption Stardock doesn't have the multimillion dollar development budget that "some" companies do. Even if they did, look at how many companies throw large sums of money into development and either outright fail, or fall terribly short of their goals. Lets encourage them to stick with what they've done well in the past that we know they will improve upon instead of asking for a brand new model.
Some of the suggestions (even to a layman) seem outright overcomplex and fall into the category of being unable to deliver even to those that suggested them. However nice it would be to play god on every battle and choose the weapon and craft that you are attacking in the scope of things would heavily detract from the managing of an empire. Playing a "very small" map with one or two opponents would likely turn into a multi hour micromanage feast every time your tin can noticed an opponents tin can.
The rock, paper, scissors style of combat worked as well as it did for two reasons. One it was very easy (and simple) to pick up and learn for the new player. Two it lends well to playing games on enormous maps that could (and did) take several multi hour sessions to play through.
If they (Stardock) were to completely revise the combat system to cater to the fans of tactical warfare, it must meet those two objectives. Simple enough for a newbie to pick up and enjoy, and streamlined enough where it doesn't bog down the other elements of gameplay. Keep in mind that in real life (for what its worth) the head of state very seldom has any hand in the tactical choices that troops (even SF units) make. Being that this is a game (and not a simulation of being commander in chief IRL) it must be enjoyable to play.Anyone that has coded complex systems like this (or anyone really) can refute what I've said and point out how I was ever so wrong, and please do. Keep in mind however that Stardock is developing a game for mass appeal and designing off of a product that has worked well in the past.
/end rant
Okay so that was more like $.53 but whatever....
-Aer
Have they said when they are giong to say what they are going to do ?
If they have, I haven't seen it posted. We probably won't hear specifics until its ready to go into alpha sometime this winter.
You'll find out on first Alpha Release - or at least the first Alpha Release those with Founders Elite Edition get access to. There is zero chance of debate - its been debated so many times over the years its unreal - just a case of seeing the final result for GalCiv 3.
If past test cycles are any indication, each build (there were many builds in both the Alpha and Beta test cycles) will contain what was added in that build, which was an implicit statement of where they wanted us to concentrate our efforts.
That won't stop me from being right!!!
Tactical should be an option. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game. This single feature was what made the difference between MOO2 and Galciv2 (where Galciv2 was worse IMHO).
Don't do RPS ala Endless space, don't do real time ala Stardrive. Make the combat interactive and interesting.
People who say we can easily exploit the AI have absolutey no idea what they're talking about. Making the combat turn based with a restricted movement system makes this simpler than chess to solve properly, and we HAVE solved chess AI's.
Turn based, 1v1 restricted movement can make the computer excruciatingly good. So good, that you'd spend a while actually thinking about how you want your ships to do battle. If you don't like this feature, turn it off.
Master of Orion 2 had both options, and I suspect this debate is the reason: You can't please everyone with one solution, so make both.
Ah... No we have not. Not even close.
I'm all for tactical combat.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
