Will we be getting turn based or real time tactical combat ?
I presume we are getting tactical combat in the series finally.
I'd like to see tactical combat, but only if the AI can handle it well. If the AI totally falls flat tactically against a human player, then dont bother.
GC2 made an attempt to create differences between the weapons...
Missiles were in general the most damaging weapons but also the easiest to defend against...
Mass drivers were in general the least damaging weapons but also the hardest to defend against...
Beam weapons were somewhere in the middle...
I think cost was also sort of kind of a factor but I don't remember anymore....
Of course, it didn't work out that way perfectly...balance changes made those above trends not true at specific points in the game (early, late, mid, etc.) or not true for specific factions...the trends were probably clearer in dark avatar, pretty murky (or non-existent) in Twilight...
In any case, it is possible for their to be good strategy behind such a seemingly simplistic system....it just all comes down to fine balancing, which unfortunately is not one of SD's strengths...
Endless space is suffering from the same problem...late game, mass drivers kill everything and so there really is no strategy behind what weapons you pick...it's a problem that could be fixed by fine balancing but without such balancing the system utterly fails...
So in short, I'd rather SD take an approach that does not bank on fine balancing in order to be effective or fun...it seems like tactical battles may be the best route solely because of that...
I do enjoy good tactical combat especially with space warfare. There really isn't anything quite like it in the gaming world. Please remember good animations can make mediocre graphics look fantastic.
Whatever the new tactical combat system, I hope it will provide some meaningful feedback for build choices: what weapons and defenses are most effective, impact of choosing a faster engine or specialized component, etc. I would also like the inclusion of tactical options such as retreat, formations, or combat range. Anything that will make tactical combat interesting and not tempt me to simply click the "auto fight" button.
This would be a neat feature, combined with the general orders system, though it would have to make sense and not be too common.
I don't know if this would be truly doable, and the bad events would have to happen to the player sometimes.
I'll say this- any sort of TC will have to be handled vastly better than it was in Elemental, otherwise it will hurt the meat of the game. Personally, the last thing I want in GC3 is Elemental-like TC.
I want tactical combat to be in the game, but if it isn't I'd still get the game since I enjoyed 2 a lot without it.
It would be nice if they came up with a system where it encouraged diversity in your fleet instead of focusing so much on biggest hull is bestest. So that hull isn't just size that is also somewhat a role, though to be fair part of this is coupled with the fact I like Star Wars and Sins and would like to have a space carrier in the game. Anyway, it would put a bit more strategy into design, building and grouping of your ships. This doesn't have to be a tactical thing either, you could have this in a hands off combat viewer system as well.
So odd there are so many people ITT wasting time posting when they should be playing Sins instead.
+1 for no tactical combat. Liked C&C series and WC series. Loved HW2 (but had to use infinite gold cheat - why even bother with resource management if the focus is on combat?) and SC2 (there's your pure tactical combat). But did not like SoaSE at all. 4x and RTS just don't mesh. And if it's not real-time, it just gets too tedious (as MOO2 did). I'll stick with League of Legends if I wanted to play a game with real time tactical combat and resource management thank you very much.
Some people here don't understand why admirals don't give orders and then jump into an F-18 himself.
Oh, and the classic example of so much hoopla being made about tactical combat is Romance of the Three Kingdoms (the book, not the game). If you merely read the book, you wonder why "the good guys" lost and "the bad guys" won when the good guys had the fiercest generals, the smartest tactician and were winning most of the battles. Then you look into the true history and discover that the winning faction had population of 4 million, compared to population of 1 million for "the good guys" and population of 2 million for the third faction.
As much as we like to fantasize a single teenager piloting a lone Gundam will turn the tides of a galactic conflict, the harsh reality is that 99.99% of the time a conflict between civilizations comes down to resources, mobilization, technology, infrastructure and diplomacy. And it's not coincidence that these are exactly the things that GalCiv has been and should continue to be about.
I'll be honest here: While I did enjoy GalCiv II and its expansions immensely, not being able to influence a battle at all would be a pretty big no-go for me. On the other hand, real-time combat, like in SotS, would IMHO bog the game down far too much and take the focus away from the strategic parts. Turn-based combat, i.e. somewhat similar to Elemental, would also have to be done extremely well and entertaining to fit in.
So I've been thinking about a possible solution and simple system that would give both sides participating in a battle various options; some general in nature, some more geared towards specific ship types or weapons. And not just a straight rock-paper-scissors system either, because those are boring and too simplified (Endless Space, I'm looking at YOU!). In the end, something like found in Birth of the Federation would seem to fit, that is, giving orders at the beginning of the battle and watching things play out afterwards (with a twist, though - in BotF you could give multiple orders of the course of a battle). This is what I wrote down yesterday, I just didn't bother posting it anymore because the forums were extremely slow for me (and I was starting to fall asleep):
Tactical Combat proposal for Galactic Civilizations IIIOrders can only be issued once per each battle round. One round takes one turn on the strategic map. Should the combat not be resolved within one turn/round because both sides still have combat ready units remaining, combat may take more than one turn to end. In that case, new orders can be ordered at the beginning of each turn.Orders are comprised of 3 components:1. Engagement Range (i.e. long, medium, short range)2. Stance / Formation (i.e. offensive, defensive, neutral)3. Targeting Rules (i.e. focus fire, spread fire, target strongest, target weakest)I. Engagement RangeThis setting can grant bonuses or penalties to different weapon classes. For the sake of simplicity, let's split weapons into categories of energy, ballistic and self-propelled weapons that each have an optimum weapon range where they cause maximum damage. It could look like this (going from short to medium to long range):### Weapon: Damage at [Short] - [Medium] - [Long] Range ###Energy Weapons (i.e. Laser): [+20] - [+0] - [-20]Ballistic Weapons: (i.e. Railgun): [-10] - [+10] - [-10]Self-propelled Weapons (i.e. Missiles): [-20] - [+0] - [-20]However, here's the twist: To determine the damage output of your AND your enemies' weapons, both sides' engagement ranges are taken into consideration. The above numbers are just the basic numbers you get from your own engagement range; after both commanders have issued their range orders, the results are like this (and it goes both ways, of course):Energy Weapons:Short - Short [+50] / Short - Medium [+20] / Short - Long [+0]Medium - Short [+20] / Medium - Medium [+0] / Medium - Long [-20]Long - Short [+0] / Long - Medium [-20] / Long - Long [-50]Ballistic Weapons:Short - Short [-25] / Short - Medium [+0] / Short - Long [+0]Medium - Short [+0] / Medium - Medium [+25] / Medium - Long [+0]Long - Short [+0] / Long - Medium [+0] / Long - Long [-25]Self-propelled WeaponsShort - Short [-50] / Short - Medium [-20] / Short - Long [+0]Medium - Short [-20] / Medium - Medium [+0] / Medium - Long [+20]Long - Short [+0] / Long - Medium [+20] / Long - Long [+50]As you can see, some numbers deviate from the original values (+/-25 and 50). This is to reflect a perfect match - or the opposite - between the weapon's optimum and the actual combat range. Ballistic weapons in this example also offer less risk, but less potential rewards as well; they perform reasonably well at most ranges.Keep in mind that the three weapon classes do not have to be limited to a specific ideal range; this was just to simplify this example. It could be possible to add long-ranged energy weapons, short-ranged rockets and other weapons straying from this pattern.II. Stance / FormationThe stance or formation of a fleet can grant modifiers to offensive or defensive values. Different stances may be better for some situations than others. For example if you are fielding a large fleet against a slightly less powerful foe and plan on running an extended campaign behind enemy lines, cutting down on the damages your ships receive may prove to be more beneficial in the long run than trying to get just that last bit of firepower out of your guns.Stances and formations can include, but should not be limited to:Offensive: Grants a +15% bonus to firepower, but reduces defensive values by the same value.Defensive: Grants a +15% bonus to defenses, but reduces firepower by the same value.Neutral: Does not grant any bonuses or penalties.Reckless Abandon: Grants a 30% bonus to firepower, but cuts defense efficiency in half.All-round Defense: Grants a 30% bonus to defenses, but reduces damage output by half.Broadside: Grants small offensive and defensive bonuses to larger ships while smaller ships suffer penalties to these values.Flanking Maneuvers: Grants small offensive and defensive bonuses to medium-sized ships while larger and smaller ships suffer penalties.Swarm Attack: Grants offensive and defensive bonuses to smaller craft while larger ships suffer penalties.III. Targetting RulesThese rules are used to tell your ships on what to fire. Different settings can have various effects, with possible sub-settings for each one:Focus Fire:All ships focus on one target. This obviously makes it possible to kill single targets quickly, but also potentially leads to a lot of overkill, that is wasted shots on an already dead target.Sub-settings: Random, Target Weakest, Target StrongestSpread Fire:Each ship opens fire on an enemy ship of its own size, if possible. If more enemies are present, the ships will try to destroy their targets before acquiring a new one.Ships that are much larger or have much more firepower in relation to their target's hitpoints may fire on multiple targets simultanously.Sub-settings: Overkill percentage, number of maximum targets per ship, number of minimum ships firing on the same target
This is pretty much an idea of how tactical space combat in GalCiv III *could* play out. The aim here is to give some ideas how some meaningful interaction could be implemented without bogging the game down with too much time spent in said combat; after issuing orders, it would all just play out similarly to GalCiv II.Additionally, this would somewhat limit the amount of complexity SD would have to deal with in terms of combat AI. Sure, there is still a lot to consider, but still a good deal less than a hex or grid based turn-based combat system would involve. Some decisions for AI and auto-resolve (IF auto-resolve uses this underlying mechanic to simulat combat) can be calculated by fleet composition and equipment (defenses and weapons) in comparison to your enemy, etc.And last, but not least, it wouldn't take too much out of the game or change too much of the overall game if a player chooses to disable this (optional!) setting altogether.Disclaimer: The values are just a placeholder, they could easily be completely different (i.e. smaller).
+1 to above suggestion is a rough outline of an interesting system. Would like to see things like flanking be dependent on speed, so not just weapons/defense matter in battles.
For Targeting the AI would have to realize if it is likely to win or lose a battle
Maybe All-Around defense could be changed to tactical retreat chance to end a battle. (otherwise I see no point to it, you're only delaying the end)
I think that an orders type of option makes sense, I am also in the camp of hoping to not see some sort of twitch system where I need to react quickly or with shooter game reflexes, not my cup of tea why I disliked Sword of the Stars and other real time strategy type games. I prefer the ability to think, plan and decide, then see the results of my strategy, not have my strategy fall apart because King Twitch could click faster and control resources quicker than I could in a contest of finger quickness, not brains.
I prefer the ability to think, plan and decide, then see the results of my strategy, not have my strategy fall apart because King Twitch could click faster and control resources quicker than I could in a contest of finger quickness, not brains.
Yup - lets not lose sight of the fact this is a Strategy Game, not some wacko shoot-em-up. The latter tedious genres are out there by the dozen for the brain dead. GalCiv must not join them, it must stay a Strategy Game.
All for improving Game Play quality, but hands off the Core Fact that this is a Strategy Game - not some dumb idiotic arcade shot-em-up. Want the latter, fine, there are dozens of RTS et al out there for the brain dead - GalCiv must not join the idiocy, and stay firmly rooted as a TBS Game.
Tactical combat would the worst thing to happen to GCIII. The GC series has always been about strategy first. You only need to look at the Total War games to see how tactical combat can break the strategic side, with enough cheesy tactics a player can overcome an AI no matter how bad their strategic situation is.
In Gal Civ, if you mess up your strategy or a particular plan doesn't pay off the way you hoped then coming back from it can be difficult. I sincerely hope this doesn't change.
+1 for tactical combat.
Just watching a completly randomized movie is not enough for me. I want (at least the illusion) of making a difference in the combat. Besides, I'm a great believer in ship specialization and I don't want some AI send my carriers (I hope there will be fighters in the game) into a dogfight. And I want give my destroyers a fighter/missile defense role while my capital ships do the hard work and so on.
I don't want to fire every gun in the game myself like in Moo2, but I want to play admiral, giving my groups orders to attack (and where to concentrate my fire on), defend, stay behind etc. Endless Space was a little too abstract in this regard, but did not a too bad job. I liked combat in Imperium Galactica 2 (even it was RTS) because you could stop it any time, give new orders (change formation, target selection etc.) and watch the fight develop.
So you could response dynamically to the progression of the battle and having great graphics give you the feeling to participate, to see the ships battle for their lives - not some meaningless icons somewhere on a map. Maybe it's pathetic, but for me that is a point. Of course, that's my personal view of things.
Edit: I can't see why a tactical component should affect my strategic decisions. No matter how good your admiral is - if you make the wrong decisions in leading your race, you're doomed. But if you're on the right way, I don't see any harm in having a tactical component. And sometimes, the outcome of a battle affects your decision on the strategic layer.
Ahhhh the age old Combat thread resurfaces.
GalCiv is TBS - and hell will freeze over before Brad turns it into some kind of Combat RTS fest for the brain dead - its not happening. He might play around with the combat box, but it is likely to stay as now - more graphics effect than anything else, and be an option to turn on or off.
GalCiv is TBS, it will stay that way - there is ZERO chance Brad will move from that with GalCiv, its his Premier TBS Game, and if anyone thinks he is going to Can that but turning it into some inane shoot-em-up, they live in a world of dreams.
You are making a difference through strategy instead of tactics. You do this by many, many means, like ship design, being positioned there in the first place, tech priorities, production priorities, production capacity, choices of commander (if a feature), intelligence, scouting etc etc etc.
All these factors, and countless more (if they focus on strategy), will decide who wins that battle. Even luck will also be factor to concider if you don't play the battle yourself. It wont always be the AI that is always unlucky....
Why don't we all just engage in an exercise. Instead of sticking to this hive minded, status quo, obsession everyone here seems to have with the rock-paper-scissors "viewer" mode of the previous games. And just to be clear people can repeat over and over that this is a strategy game but it doesn't excuse not having a fun, engaging, tactical component.
Choose a mechanic, or for bonus points create your own mechanic, and describe how you would integrate the mechanic into the game.
This should help get you started.
http://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgamemechanic
I don't disagree. But if I have different types of ships and not one multiple purpose design that's good for all, tactics will decide if you win or loose - and how high your casualties are. In GalCiv 2, you had no distinct roles for your ships. Either you had enough points in place or you hadn't. Ok, luck always plays a role, but placing transports or carriers in the front line will achieve nothing but getting your ships killed. And dead ships can't fight again which weakens your overall position.
Ahhhhh .... Tactical Combat ..... the old "its only a button" syndrome rofl
Games Houses have two floors of programmers working on real time combat games - its a full time occupation in itself. Any Tactical Combat Mechanic outside a Combat Box for GalCiv 3 that can be turned on or off; is a land of dreams, its just not happening, end of story frankly.
I guess your trying to say that we can't have a real-time tactical component? Um go read that link, I personally am not even opposed to a deck/cards mechanic, heck ANY mechanic that integrates ships and ship combat into the game in a meaningful way.
Drop your pre-conceptions, no-one is demanding turn-based, hex based, square based, or real-time, not that I would be opposed to any if they worked.
What I do want is for it to be an actual GAME, not a toy, not an illusion, but something that makes the strategic choices I make about ships have meaning in combat.
double
triple
quadruple post! New record!
I would also like to see a system where you can give orders before combat, and where weapons are differentiated. In particular I would like to be able to break fleets into formations and give formations different orders. So that all my different types of ships aren't acting the same. I think different ranges for different weapon types is also must have.
Your fleet would be divided into formations on your own turn and before combat you would give all your formations Stances and Priorities. Priorities would just tell your formation which enemy formation to aim for, although they would still engage nearby enemies. Some stances would be:
Charge - Full speed attack towards the enemy until one side is defeated.
Advance - A measured assault. Will try and stay with other formations.
Aggro - A quick attack followed by evasive maneuvers then another attack repeated until end of combat.
Hold Back - Will advance slowly and try and stay behind other formations.
Defend - Won't attack but will defend allies and stay with them. Can target allies.
Evade - Will actively avoid enemies.
I think this system would simulate real tactics in a satisfying way. Having your entire fleet follow one set of orders would be very unintuitive. This system could also lead to many cool situations and maneuvers. Each player would have to examine the enemies formations and make a plan, with each trying to out guess the other. Ships would automatically choose the best range from which to attack since the AI would have to do this anyway.
For example perhaps most my fleet is vulnerable to missiles and you have a large formation of missile ships. So I know I can't sit back and let that formation pound my fleet from afar. Thus I plan on charging one of my better defended formations at them to keep them busy while the rest of my fleet advances. However my opponent recognizes the threat and sets one of his faster formations to charge my anti missile ships while his missile ships hold back. Both players here have to analyze their opponents and try and predict their moves before combat. I think this system would be super intense.
LOL! You win one internets. It'll be in your account.
After some time thinking about it, I don't know if yay or nay to tactical combat.
From a resources point of view? Not having tactical combat means more resources for he strategy layer,. But if you could guarantee me a strategy layer like Twilight (of the Arnor) with some improvements and optional tactical combat in space and planet assaults... well, it'd be difficult not to consider it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
