I envision space combat like this:
1. 2D plane(3D plane like in Homeworld ads no value at all, it just makes you look at tiny dots all the time)
2. turn based combat because that's the best kind of combat in terms of tactical depth, emphasis on visuals and fits perfectly in a space game, X-com and many other games have proven time and time again the benefits of a turn based system.
3. just like in Might & Magic Heroes 6 your skills, researched technology and types of ships determines your battlefield setup when encountering enemy.
4. you don't give orders one unit at a time and then each unit performs an action, but you give sequence of orders, a plan of action which is then executed in a single turn for all the units, of course researched technology/tactics and types of ships determining which options are at your disposal
5. then, at the end of battle, you have an option to view the whole thing uninterrupted from start to finish and post such battles online. Also you would have an option of fixed camera vs free roaming.
6. but for all of this to work and feel great, animations, effects and graphics need to be top notch with dynamic lighting and shadows, sharp textures, particle effects, volumetric explosions, etc.etc.
Basically, you would feel like you are watching Battlestar Galactica
I really believe you would have a hit if combat would be like this instead of the underwhelming, tedious affair of Sins of a Solar Empire.
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.
Those games are more RPG and Tactic-games then they are strategy. Galactic Civilizations has always been all about Strategy. I hope it's kept that way.
Alltogh some RPG-elements like leveling up Governeurs and Admirals could fit in without hurting the strategy aspect. Full human controll of tactical combats would not.
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 Homeland 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)
Just my 2 cents...
Age of Wonders series has also been about strategy, that never stopped it from having tactical combat, even more so in Age of Wonders 3.
Not having tactical combat in GalCiv 3 would be a terrible idea, it would feel outdated and impoverished.
It looks as if the biggest problems against tactical combat of some sort is that its detractors don't think of themselves as intelligent enough to use it.
I disagree that 3D adds nothing to Homeworld ... its great and central to that game's design. However, I agree it would add no value to GalCiv3. They are different games that play differently. While its great that games borrow design elements from other games, in the end each game should be its own. I hope Homeworld 3 expands on Homeworld 2's epic borderless (or invisible border) cosmic vastness ... I hope GalCiv3's tactical combat gives us pretty eye candy but requiring little, if any, micromanagement ... really just want something to show in pew pew eyecandy gloriousness epic pwnage if I (or, for shame, if the AI) pwn in warship tech and production. Anything more specific than that, I think, is silly ... I am curious to see what Brad & Co. come up with.
Actually, a system like Gratuitous Space Battles would be a nice thing to have barring the absence of full tactical combat, even there in later patch a degree of direct control was added.
Imagine that with better graphics, animations and 3D models. And in the preparation screen you would set the conditions for using special abilities.
Actually, the opposite is true. I'm more worried that the AI won't be able to use it effectively. Of the few TBS games I've played, each one had AI behavior that could be exploited by the player allowing victories that really should not have happened, and indeed didn't if the player skipped the battle.
AI's will always be exploited. It is based upon the degree of difficulty allowed.
The AI can beat out the player every time if the programmers allow it to. Without cheating, to boot.
Now consider multiplayer. If strategy is not allowed within combat (which is called "tactics" to differentiate the two modes of thought) then combat will become a boring affiar that adds nothing but time wasted.
It won't matter what you've researched nor how you've researched. It'll only matter how _many_ ships you have.
I just can't stand that kind of thoughtlessness in competitive endeavors.
I can't stand that kind of thoughtlessness in the campaign itself and it's exactly what will happen if there is no tactical combat or at least like Gratuitous Space Battles setup.
Umm, I don't think you read that through. GC2 had a combat viewer, not real tactical combat, and it was more quality-based than quantity. If you have strong defense versus the type of weapon the AI uses, and use a weapon the AI has no defense for, you will win even if the AI has more in number. In direct control tactical combat, like Master of Orion II, I could defeat the AI even if the AI has technological advantages over me because I knew serious flaws in the AI's thinking in controlling tactical combat in MOO2.
I'm not sure what games you've played where its been the reverse of this.
I'm speaking from a multiplayer point of view.
The only reason the "combat viewer" worked in galciv2 was because the AI was purposely hobbled in how it would equip its ships.
With more than one person you'll have mroe than one challenger with equal ships because they will change their ships immediately to counter yours. And since there is absolutely no substantial difference in weapon systems it will all come down to whom has the mostest and biggest. Not the weapons nor defenses researched.
And how will the combat be resolved when both sides posess the same quality ships? Which will happen all the time.
Sure, if upgrades are free and ship building is instant. Since neither of those are likely to be true, you will be able to bankrupt your opponent if you can switch weapons (without bankrupting yourself, of course) and attack before they can respond. At the very least force them to upgrade only part of their fleet and pick off the obsolete ships before they can afford to upgrade them.
Besides, there's no reason to think two evenly matched fleets will behave too terribly different if there's some sort of tactical control rather than a set-rules engagement like in GC2. Unless one player is completely incompetent, battles will either be draws or mutual suicide with one or two survivors.
Age of Wonders is a strategy game too, of course, but it's lesser strategy in it then in GalCiv2. The heavy focus on tactical battles is one of the reasons, heavy RPG focus is another one, all other kinds of design choices a third. It's hard to be everything, because these other focuses takes away from the pure importance of strategical decissions.
And no, it's not outdated to do smart design choices when making strategy games. At least I don't hope so.
You're assuming you'll be the only thinking person.
Don't do that.
Fair enough, but the vast majority of folks getting GalCiv3 (as in ~90%) are going to be primarily playing the game in SP mode. So those who oppose and/or are wary regarding tactical combat have valid concerns (regarding the AI being able to handle it).
I personally am not worried about this myself, as I'm confident Brad can deliver an AI capable of waging space battles. However, I don't blame those who cite it as a concern.
This is news to me. In what way(s) was the AI "hobbled"?
Both these posts are borderline trolling (and the winking smiley-face only makes them more so), which merely weakens your argument. I'd ask you to please discontinue doing so, especially given that I too am looking forward to GalCiv3 having tactical combat (if for not entirely the same reasons).
Yep .... I'm real dumb, so lets not do it, it would overwhelm my miniscule brain ....
Well, that's yet another pointless tactical combat thread dead.
If you don't understand the difference between strategic surprise and tactical surprise, that's not my fault.
Ah, well, since you're lack of intellectual capacity requires everything you choose not to comprehend to be "trolling", I shall of course give your request all the respect it deserves.
You troll.
They're all fairly pointless. Very few, if any, are actually arguing for or against the same thing. There is no common ground to base their responses on.
Superb way to cover up your lack of comprehension.
The space battles on Stardrive are really, really pretty and fun. But I don't need them to be happy. Gal Civ 2 is still my favourite game. I don't want Gal Civ 3 to clone Stardrive's battles, but there is something to be said for an approach that is pretty and very watchable. Just animate the die roll, as ships get more experience, the animations could change to show that experience. I don't know; I just know that huge fleet battles in Stardrive are amazingly entertaining and visually stunning, especially with mods installed. It's the rest of the game that is not as good as Gal Civ imo.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
