I really liked GalCiv2 except for one critical part of the whole experience. Tech tree on it was boring and pointless. Which was annoying since tech is my favourite aspect on any game in this genre. I seriously hope GC3 improves on this aspect. And I'm not just talking about lots of unique tech on races.
Multiple requirements, optional requirements.. Tech tree needs to be more complex. Or the very least it should support modding in tech tree that is more interesting and provides more options for advancement than just next in the endless straight line. Some techs should depend on more than one other tech possibly from other branches and some techs could have optional dependencies that are not required but could reduce research cost if acquired.
Other than that, I'm really exited on GalCiv3.
Two? I often blow through entire chains of defensive techs in 2-3 turns. Sometime 6-8 techs in the same turn.
Yes, but even civ had techs with multiple requirements. And as for needed resources, you could research everything, but you couldn't build the resulting unit when lacking necessary resources (e.g. no sword fighter without iron). The logic behind tbis is that you could ge to enough samples of the needed resource to finish you invention, but without a source on your own (trading or mining) you wouldn't have enough of it to use it in a greater scale (industrially).
So, I think there is room for (playable) improvement on the tech tree. And I too like the idea of splitting research points over multiple tech fields.
Funny you mention this OP. Even though it's been a very long time since I played galciv, this thread reminded me of the boring research techs. So, I agree with you.
Hey, they can release DLC with more ship parts to show off online or single player, with a system like that they can rake in untold profits if the base game is good.
I know I seem to be at odds with most of the posters, here but I really thought the GCII tech tree was a good one. Could it have some improvement, sure but I liked most of what they had. There was lots of it, so you never ran out of stuff to research. I don't want them to throw away all they had before.
I agree.
Thirded.
I found GC2 tech tree rather boring. The endless laser 1, 2, 3, armor 1,2,3 and so on trees were not very interesting and you had to go through all laser series before developing the next type of weapon. This was easy to balance (let the tech get smaller, then let it make 1 point more, again shirking, then next level...), but really unimaginative. And very linear. True, there was enough tech to keep you busy for a while, but just because you had many expensive branches, all with the same scheme.
I hope for something more interesting in GC3.
I personally would love an 'option' in 'options' to get a blind tech tree like the one in SotS II. You pick a field you want to research and have NO idea what you are going to get in 10 turns, say under 'quantum energy'. I would love some base techs to start but what you get in them may be weapons or defenses or something else.
Going back to Quantum energy, you research for 10 or 20 turns, and after the system rolls a die and you may end up with Phasers, a Quantum Engine or a Mira lux Force Field.
You can also weigh your research if you build certain things on your planets or have access to some materials so you give the randomizer a greater weight to 'weapons'..
This would make Multi player more interesting but would be a devil to program the AI to learn and use effectively.
Also Just FYI, I am in the camp where I could care less if we had Multi Player or not...I just thought it would be different..
Overall I LOVE the Gal Civ II tech trees and think they should just be expanded upon and have each tech meaningful when you get it.
Competitive multiplayer folks are probably going to hate it, due to the randomness.
As a coop player that doesn't bother me, but I don't like the blindness in general. I'd rather know what I'm getting, like how most games do it.
I'd also like to see a more detailed tech tree, where improving your engines or research or whatever involves interesting choice, rather than going through Engines I --> Engines II --> Whatever you think is good enough.
Imagine if you instead were choosing between a cheap engine tech, which only provided speed + a culture boost you don't care about, a more expensive tech with prerequisites that could improve your economy, or a significantly distant tech which could offer major improvements, but would leave you without better engines as you traveled through the prereqs. Instead of there being only one obvious progression, you have many possible routes, each of which could offer significant replay value even if you're the type to always go for engines.
Seems to me like the latter design beats the former, which is why I favor importing that kind of Civ/Alpha Centauri style tree into GalCiv.
If anyone is old enough to remember Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri, it had a very complex tech tree that ultimately left you confused as to what you had and what good was it. I enjoyed the no-nonsense names, like laser 1, making it smaller was laser 2 etc... It is always the progression in tech as we know it. You make something, then you make it cheaper smaller etc... until you get a break thru like plasma 1, etc...
I don't want really obscure naming of every single "beam" weapon as if each is a brand new thing. I thought GC2 had very logical tech progressions. Now it doesn't mean it was perfect but it had a lot to research. Many races had some unique branches they could go down, things that made each race a bit different.
while the poison proved 65% fatal to the Drengin our invading forces were ahem overcome by the affects as well it seems that the poison/super viagra also had the ability to make races genetically compatible.....
in 5-7 years we expect much of the planet to be overrun with drengin/terran sex-crazed hybrids if we don't stop them now they could overrun the galaxy in less then 40 years
You mean like, say, the Krogans on Mass effect
Galactic already have paths where 1 tech can lead to different other techs
[quote who="chuck1es" reply="11" id="3405555"] I quite enjoyed the research mechanic in MOO2 where you had to choose a tech making you, consequently, lose others.
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="13" id="3405584"] Still, if that isn't enough, there is always the option for random tech trees. I don't mean totally random. More like in SotS 1. Certain basic techs are always available, while some of the more advanced techs have a higher or lower chance of appearing each game.
I think the most annoying part about following the same derivative research for new modules was that you rarely saw an improvement that warranted upgrading ship designs. This was because in terms of value for space or cost, the modules were packed too close together. If they were spread out a bit more, with a good increase in firepower through the tech tree, then you would have something to look forward to.
That depends on the research game mechanics. If you get bonus research points for splitting up your research, you'd have a choice like "get X at turn 5, Y at 10, and Z at 15" vs "get X, Y and Z in 12 turns". Then the challenge is weighing your short-term need to have tech X ASAP against your long-term research efficiency.
Adding some more complexity, I suggest the optimum research strategy - the things that give you the most research bonuses - should be derived from your civilization's cultural approach to science; then you could decide on it in the Species Editor before start.
[quote who="Magnumaniac" reply="9" id="3405467"]
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="13" id="3405
[quote who="RonLugge" reply="14" id="340558
[quote who="Magnumaniac" reply="17" id="34056
[quote who="Jam3" reply="18" id="3405621
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
