Will we be getting turn based or real time tactical combat ?
I presume we are getting tactical combat in the series finally.
This is true, but I only want so much hard science in my games. Realistically all space battles would also be dead silent, but that's not much fun.
I feel like tactics like being the "Arcians?" and going full glass cannon were very gimmicky, along with going glass cannons in general just makes me feel bad for fighting the AI who can't stop me because I know what I am doing.
If we can iron out stuff like that so that the best ships are properly thought out and are less missile buses (Not to remove them entirely, but to give reasons to use them along side more balanced ships) and more space ironclads I will be happy with even a similar GC2 combat that is abstract.
So its true ..... there are Gamer's with a conscience .......
Cant afford a Conscience when saving the Universe ...
I'm a bit surprised how long this thread has become.I'm much more interested in other aspect's of the new GalCiv3. Like the new diplomatic system, planetary management, espionage, ship building(yay!) and events that occur in the game.I thought those would get much more community activity.Or is this the classic case of minority yelling we want that and majority bashing them and thus a thread longer than long cat ?Why is people so interested and concerned about this ?
This^ +1
I like turn based combat. I Hope they will surprise us with a good ideas for it.
Just make tactical battles optional for those who don't want tacBat. I think a set up like in dominions, where you issue general commands to your fleet, and order the admirals to attempt to implement various strategic and tactical doctrines, (which come from a list) - then let the AI fight both sides would be wonderful. The various doctrines would become available based on leadership, species, tech developments, and perhaps previous experience.
My #1 and #2 gripes with GalCiv were the lack of tac battles (real or turn based, matters not to me) and, though I will probably be skewered for saying this- the rock/paper/scissors combat tech progression.
Anxious to hear more about it.
I notice a big division in people that want tactical combat and people that don't.
I am firmly in the camp that doesn't want tactical combat in GalCiv3. I believe it is too time consuming and will dominate the game. Moreover, GalCiv3 should be strategic about empire management/diplomacy/expansion. Those that like tactical combat should play games such as Sins and Swots and Homeworld imho. What should matter in combat is the composition of your fleets and your management of the fleets (ie where you park them and how you divide your military and when you attack)
Just my 2 cents...
People in here are arguing over different ideas of tactical combat.
I see too many akin to, "I would like some control over my fleets." usually is responded with "I disaggree because I don't like RTS in GalCiv.".
Not even arguing about the same thing.
We already have 'some control' over our fleets...it's the way we design them. Tactical combat people want control over each ships actions during a battle. That doesn't belong in a TBS like galciv.
Even if tactical combat doesn't get added some major things need to change from GCII. The old system will not work at all for the reasons people have said before. A lot more depth needs to be added to ship design and counters somehow. Humans aren't going to make the same mistakes as AIs, unless they are really stupid they won't let you hard counter their fleet or put fleets in stupid places. This means ship design will become super boring in multiplayer as everyone just uses a little of everything. Thus it won't matter at all and only numbers will determine who wins fights. I don't think anyone wants to play a game that is all about massing completely generic units.
Case in point.
I want tactical combat. I don't want control over individual ships.
In RTS games, individual unit control leads to high action counts winning games and ridiculously gimmicky things like running units around in circles while other things kill the ships stuck chasing them.
In TBS games, it just leads to one of two things. A nightmare, or extremely limited scope.
If you had a thousand ships in a fleet, that would be awesome. In MOO, they'd have been in stacks, which is gay but not so much. If not in stacks, a tactical combat between thousands of ships could take hours. Who would want that? The result is silly things like "armies" being 9 units max and other such silliness to get around the management problem of large unit counts.
My own personal dream system would be some sort of squad based real time implementation. Ships would have command cruisers of some sort that were the control unit. Tactics and general directives would be issued. No micro level directives. Defend here, retreat there, patrol this. No attack this ship. With an AI that learns from player behavior, AI could get extremely good at building fleets. With a more realistic command method, they wouldn't have to worry about silly little things like focus firing particular ships first, individually retreating damaged vessels. The nonsense would be largely cut out.
Fleet sizes would then be determined by how many command cruisers you could network, and how many ships those command cruisers could coordinate. Logistics in essence. With no micro level control and fully automated individual ship behavior, your direction would be meaningful, but largely lack in cheapshot methods of accomplishing things.
I say real time only because no matter how streamlined the system is, turn based tactical still ends up taking far more time unless the damage rate is very high. A high damage rate leads to an increasing inability to compensate for clever human behaviors in positioning. I'd prefer simple pre battle settings to turn based tactical combat. Simple design level settings like close for attack, stand off, evade.
I guess you never played Master of Orion.
Well said. That's what I'd really like to see.
Again, speaking for myself: because this would be an extreme change for the worse. All of the things you mention - diplomacy, events, planetary improvements, and so forth - are things where there are lots of possibilities for improvement. That can be exciting to speculate on and/or offer suggestions about, but ultimately in most cases it's going to be a matter of "I want this" instead of "I don't want this". Adding tactical combat, by contrast, makes me less likely to want to buy the game.
To put it another way, while many elements of GalCiv II could be expanded upon, combat is the only one of those elements where expanding it would also be taking something away. That's why more people care about it.
The fact that no one from Stardock has stepped in to reassure people (one way or another) probably isn't helping.
I couldn't agree more! Hopefully Stardock will give us clarity soon on this point, which appears to a very contentious issue.
Of course they won't step in - they want to rise the tension as much as possible.
A soon they say, "yeah, there is tac combat" or "no, there won't be tac combat", one faction or the other will scream bloody murder and they never ever will buy the game. So why say a thing? Anything they say will pump hydrogen into the fire for everyone will interpret any statement suitable to his/her view.
It'd be impossible for them to release the game wihtout people knowing if there is tactical combat or not. Alpha, beta.. And considering that there is going to be people that will complain no matter what, Stardock is better just making sure that whatever they use, it's fun and as good as possible. Right now they probably are gauging our reaction, their plans and how to inform us of all that cool stuff they plan.
But even the first alpha is months away. Much time to discuss and pseculate - and people to buy the founder's edition (including myself).
And to be honest: Wouldn't it be boring if they'd tell us all of their plans?
Besides that: plans will change. Many ideas sound good in planning stage, but some things will proof impossible or to have major drawbacks so you have to re-think.
Purposely misunderstand much?
Oh they'll likely come out with, "We have the best of both worlds!!!".
Which would lead to interesting discussions in here
Then the trick will be in avoiding all the threads stating what they should have done with the combat instead.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
