I've just bought the gama and can't wait to get my hands on it
Since I'm way overexcited, I'm thinking in terms of my own idea of what the perfect 4x star game would be, what would you like to see in such a game? I wonder if some of these will be part of GC3...
- 3D-Galaxy with stars and planets not on a flat map but in three dimensions, plus star map functionality to quickly highlight things (say sector maps, fleet movements, civilian vessels etc., think Caliban from Mike Resnick's birthright)
- The option to generate immense maps, think Distant Worlds with thousands of stars and tens of thousand of planets, if you wanted to
- The option to have more AI opponents, this kinda goes with the larger galaxies, say 40 opponents and the option for some of these to be vastly different (say some can only live in gas giants and you can exterminate every living thing on such a planet but you cannot colonize it, races that can only inhabit, say, red giants etc, think Kevin Anderson's Saga of the seven suns)
- More freedom to come up with surprising solutions (say thew way you can teleport an entire station through an unstable wormhole in Haegemonia)
- Full tactical battle mode - the option to choose whether you direct the battle yourself or delegate that fully or partially to the AI, say I want to personally attend to the invasion of a star system as the outcome of the battle is be crucial, but I want the AI to take care of search and destroy mission to handle two pirate fighters in an asteroid belt). Say the game can switch between full RTS mode if you choose full tactical battle mode or auto as it is in GC2 now.
- Battle mode in 3d (as in freedom of movement in three directions), think Homeworld-like battles plus terrain bonuses/obstacles (say you can use an steroid belt to your advantage or the gravity well of a planet or the radiation of a star), think Ender's game on steroids
- More sophisticated ship building options
- More complicated tech trees and interdependancy and synergy of the techs in plus more race-centric variations
- More control over planetary invasions if you choose to
I would like to see a new type of space item or anomaly, that acts like an instant teleport. It would be like a space resource, in that there would be several of them scattered about the galaxy, but they are actually Arnorian constructs. The first constructor to reach and build on it, owns it. From that point on, any of your civilizations ships could travel to it. Once they reached it, they would be teleported to another part of the galaxy. Here's the interesting part.
If you have more than one of these, your ships will be teleported to one of these other constructs. You can specify the destination traveled to if you happen to own more than two of these. That way you have instant teleport transit for your ships to another construct AS LONG AS YOU OWNED THEM. So you would have to defend it to keep it. It could be treated as a military satellite for game purposes in that you could attach weaponry and shields to it. It would be treated just like a military satellite in the game for attack and defense purposes. Once it was "destroyed" though, the anomaly is available for another race to annex it. The anomaly itself is indestructible though and cannot be destroyed. You can think of it as a Stargate network of sorts, except there are only a couple of them, and they are in random locations in space.
Another twist to this would be that if you only owned ONE of these constructs, it still functions to teleport your ships - it's just that the teleport will be to a random point in the galaxy - and not to the same point each time. In this respect it works as a one-way wormhole, but the end of the wormhole does not take you to the same fixed point in the galaxy each time.
These things could be a strategic resource that all the races could use effectively for trade purposes (shortens the initial trade route travel time) or in cases where you need to strategically place ship fleets for battles if you are lucky enough to have a terminating teleport near to enemy fleet concentrations and want to try some hit and run attacks. Just make sure that your resource is well defended...
For Larsenex
http://www.amazon.com/Falkenbergs-Legion-Jerry-Pournelle/dp/067172018X
More in depth planetary management.
And have my empire DO something, like private citizens can build stations, settle planets, something.
I REALLY hope Brad has played Distant Worlds, because to me, its a great example of so many things that many games lack.
Check out any of the TOTAL WAR games: they are turn based with RTS combat (if you so choose) and that would be totally acceptable to me in Gal Civ III
Anyway, that has little to do with my true wish(es): No, what I (eventually) want to see is all my favorite games coming together in one great game. At least the best features of each of them. I miss being able to play Outpost and wish that GC3's colonization process had elements similar to the ones in Outpost--perhaps even exactly the same on more hostile planets.
I enjoyed Space Bucks (not to be confused with Starbucks; as that's just over priced coffee); except that the game became too intense and would crash; but I would like to see it's better elements added to GC3.
Going back to Outpost, I liked the way research was conducted in that game and would like to see something similar to it in GC3.
I also enjoyed Masters of Orion (I and II, not so much III); but I can't think of anything I would want from that game that isn't already in GC2 and hopefully all the good stuff from GC2 will still be in III.
Other than that I have always liked things that build on other things. For examples, in Ultima Online, one gathers wool from sheep, spins the wool into yarn, uses a loom to turn the yarn into fabric, then makes a shirt from the fabric; or mines ore, smealts the ore, and then makes armor or weapons....
I believe that should be an important part of the "trade" system. You mine asteroids and ship the metals to a processing plant. The plant processes the ores and ships the metals to a factory. The factory produces parts and ships them... etc. Molasses to Rum to slaves, and all of them to gold!
Just a thought.
SK
I totally agree and have always been surprised that no one has incorporated the "Eliza" concept into their diplomacy AI's. Back before the internet even existed I was running a multi-line bulletin board system and had modified an "Eliza" program on a stand alone computer. I had guests over and let them talk to the computer and after ten minutes they still didn't realize they were talking to a program and not to someone on the other end. it should be easy enough to modify "Eliza" to handle diplomatic conversations. it's just sad that no one has tackled that task.
Nuff said on that, but I wanted to add that another important concept is Logistics! This is true both in combat and in trade! The south lost the war due to poor logistics and so did the Germans! Of course the proper diplomacy can also affect logistics (trade embargos and what have you).
But then I may have mentioned this before.
Thats right!
Thanks much.
Also to elaborate, my new system today has zero hangs or delays. I built my system actually for such a game, OC'd quad cord I5 3570K (4.2), 8 gigs ram, Geforce gtx 670, I am using a 64 bit SSD to be used as a cache drive (intel smart tech), 1 terrabyte, and of course Win 7 Pro.
Even though I like the Total War games, I didn't like the RTS combat options, typically you have a huge advantage taking the RTS route vs the automatic so if you wanted the best possible results you have to play out them which draws out the game grossly by playing out all battles. In Galactic Civilizations the game can already be drawn out long simply by the number of planets versus in Total War you're limited by the number of countries in game. You're talking 10-20 times more, not to mention that's on Galactic Civilizations II, who knows about Galactic Civilizations III. I just don't want that option in the game if you get a huge advantage playing the battles versus the automatic way. I want to concentrate more what makes the game great which is colonization and conquering other races.
I like games that have to do with transporting goods from one place to another such as Railroad Tycoon II, Locomotion, as well as many other transport/tycoon games. My main concern with something like that is taking away from the rest of the game. As long as they can do it with out taking away from the rest of the game I'd be okay with it.
Word
I personaly hope, galaxy will feel alive, and there will be a lot of things to explore, find and discover, not just at the beggining but thru the whole game, including alot of minor races, space monster, pirates and random events... Because discovery and exploration is my favorite part of 4X space games. I always can not wait to start again and see whats there for me this time.
I am hoping for some interesting mechanics and features for different races. Not only +1 to income. Or +1 to science etc... But things which fundamentaly change the way you play the game. I like to explore different races and strategies, and if the only difference are flat % bonuses and graphics, I am always bit sad.
I want alot of different mechanics and ways how to win the game. But at the same time, I want all of them to be connected and well executed. There is no point to go big, if features do not make any sense or do not play well or does not connect well with other features. Game must be executed well and gameplay mechanics must play together well.
Meaningfull choices and mechanics. I would like to see differences between weapons other then different number. In a way they work and having advantages and disadvantages. Same goes for colony development. Specialization which will force you to think about developing your colony, instead of only stacking flat bonuses or % from the beggining to the end.
RPG features for colonies and units. Being able to specialize or improve colonies with different bonuses, or level up units. So during the game I care about them more. You did it quiete well in Fallen Enchantress. Where you could specialize cities etc. Something like that but in sci fi fashion.
Space terrain, this is very often completely missing feature in space 4x games. Having different anomalies on the map, with effects and special resources, unique locations and artefacts to discover.
Good UI. All above would not be good, if game will not be running well and UI will not aid player. I know so many 4x games, which have bad UI and it makes great game, chore to play. UI must be fast, clean, helpfull, crisp and need to have advanced functions to be able find, sort, memorize, quickly access and compare things easily. Easy to understand tooltips and clever coloring of different atributes can help alot, to give you most important information at glance.
Performance. I remember elemental when it came out. It was running so bad on my PC that I have refused to play it. Please do not make same mistake again, and now when game is DX10-10 and 64bit. Make sure it scales well on faster machines. I have gaming computer and I would like to put it in use.
It must have MP same as single player.. Also, I would like to see game, where community or stardock would be able to create challenges for the players, where there would be set rules (map, race, victory type etc...) and game would give you score in the end which would go onto online leaderboard. You know, to have some competition and feeling that you actualy play againts other people when you do not .
Mod Support for Single player and Multiplayers aswell.
Mainly want more indepth goverments, ideology and culture playing a bigger part.
Military dictatorships, where appoval doesn't matter much. i want to be able to rule through fear and not just through love.
Economies being vaslty different from Corporatocracy to Robotic Communism.
Well, one thing that frankly irritates me to no end with GalcivII, is how easily the AI will declare war on you, and then literally, fight to the death over it.
Seriously.
The 'AI' in Galciv, indeed in many 4x games in fairness, has no clue, or desire to sign peace treaties, even when there fleets are being massacred and their planets falling one after another. I have played matches with really absurd situations like I have 200 worlds and 100 + state-of-the art Cap ships and numerous support ships, and the enemy might have a few dozen worlds left, and they STILL refuse to end hostilities.
Now from time to time, the AI will declare war for some stupid reason, and when they are too far away to actually attack you, maybe a couple years later they will ask for peace. But thats pretty rare.
Mostly the AI civs prefer to knock-down fights to the bitter end.
How many times have you see this in GCII
Civ X has negotiated a peace Treaty with Civ Y despite there losses?
-Too many times to count. When I try to negotiate a peace treaty while Im getting my butt kicked?
-Civs replay: Fat chance.
PC 'tech' has mostly gone into better graphics and slightly more complex/faster(sometimes) games, but AI scripting has lagged across the board. Games 'look' better today, and run a little faster than 10-15 years ago to be sure,, but they mostly 'play' at the same level of 'intelligence' they did in the 1990s.
In Galciv the war 'penalty' is far too cheap. War, rather than being a great strain and drain of both lives and resources, is pretty much a cheap, risk-free way to expand your empire. Now the devs understood some of this, and implemented the logistics cost which was a good first step, but like many things in Galciv2, the concept was there, but the implementation left a lot to be desired. They put in the war-penalty, but I would be suprised if the AI civs even pay it, or if they do, its cheated out so they can basically carry on endless war with no penalty. Again, good solid reality based concepts, but weak implementation.
Its far too easy and cheap to conquer and occupy other worlds, where in reality, such operations would be hideously complex and would be disasters(even if you have the most powerful empire) if they failed. When they fail in GC2, its no big deal, or loss. Just try again next week.
Do you have any suggestions as to how to address it? A flat -X% economy hit seems pretty arbitrary to me. Maybe a two-phase ship maintenance charge; peacetime upkeep would be relatively cheap, but putting your fleet on a war footing increases maintenance 3x or something. Possibly even a smart stepping between the two, where only ships within 100 spaces of a hostile world/unit go on a war footing so rolling over a minor civ doesn't tank your economy for the few turns it takes to do so.
Well. for a complex entity like a star-faring empire, or a prospective one, the cost of maintaining warships would be very expensive-even in peacetime. Perhaps not prohibitively depending on size of your empire so, but expensive just the same.
In most 4x games, for simplicity sakes, fleets are always assumed to be 100% combat ready. This means fully crewed, fully fueled, fully stocked with munitions and supplies, and ready to fight at very short notice.
In reality, a fleets roster of ships would be nowhere near 100% battle ready . Depending on peacetime appropriations, only a so many % of your ships would actually be able to fight. Perhaps less than 25% would be fully combat ready at any given time. So, I think yes, a 300-400% increase in appropriations (cost) is likely a good approximation. Also, some way of tracking the effect on the civilian economy would be helpful too. As your fleet grows larger, the drag on the economy *has* to increases as well. This would reflect that the industrial bases maintenance and upkeep is being deferred to support large star-fleets and armies.
None of this should or would make large fleets or interesting galaxy-wide dustips impossible, but at some point, large militaries always break the bank.
The best example I have in fiction, is the Successions Wars by Jerry Pournelle and other writers. The First Empire of Man vs the Sauron Unified State. Basically a 'civil' war of sorts. The Empire at the start of the conflict controlled most of the 400 or so settled worlds, the Sauron less, but they had a powerful military and allies that broke away from the empire.
Anyhow, the cost of fighting the Saurons took such a toll that even though the empire 'wins' the war(eventually), the cost is so great it effectively breaks the empire and a dark ages is the end result. Due to damage from the war, the enormous cost of the conflict, many worlds are abandoned by the empire. Even the science of interstellar travel itself is lost for a time. Many worlds revert to pre-industrial status, or worse. The higher tech worlds suffer too, many revert to coal and oil and interplanetary travel and trade all but ceases as a result. Now, of course, that isnt something I would design into a game as such, but It is a logical end outcome of too much military.
A non-linear cost curve would be best. Get to the point(towards the top of the curve) where each new warship built diverts so many resources that the military has to be reined in, or risk an economic or even industrial crisis.
Great ideas Everyone would like to hear examples on how to do this. I think things get done when you can be more specific.
In Galciv the war 'penalty' is far too cheap. War, rather than being a great strain and drain of both lives and resources, is pretty much a cheap, risk-free way to expand your empire. Now the devs understood some of this, and implemented the logistics cost which was a good first step, but like many things in Galciv2, the concept was there, but the implementation left a lot to be desired. They put in the war-penalty, but I would be suprised if the AI civs even pay it, or if they do, its cheated out so they can basically carry on endless war with no penalty. Again, good solid reality based concepts, but weak implementation. Its far too easy and cheap to conquer and occupy other worlds, where in reality, such operations would be hideously complex and would be disasters(even if you have the most powerful empire) if they failed. When they fail in GC2, its no big deal, or loss. Just try again next week.
My ideal 4x game would come with an option to delegate. Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to "cut up" your empire into smaller districts and spawn AI to run them (using the same AI mechanics as your own race)? Something like selecting a group of systems and bases (and fleets that are homed thereon) and spawning them off into independent domains, almost at-will. You could have a mechanic to quantify that action, too: Larger empires tend to be harder to govern, possibly making them less efficient. By building autonomous "districts", empires could improve efficiency at the cost of direct management...a no-brainer for really big games. Each district might have its own logical and financial pools, tax rates, etc.The next evolution of a mechanic like that would be to introduce more political dynamics within your own empire: Colonies have a tendency to rebel...civil wars...insurrection...new options to use or have used on you. Nothing says lovin' like fomenting rebellion among your rival's government, splintering off a disparate political faction into a whole new galactic civilization.
Michael, you want to take away a piece of GC that I just love. I love huge maps and I love the planet colonization rush. I have played all 5 of the Sid Meier Civilization games. I was really upset when Civilization III came out and it was so restrictive with empire expansion, and I hated it. When we were beta testing one of the GCs (I think it was GC2), they made colonization of planets beyond the first few so expensive that huge galaxies were just about unplayable, and when we pointed that out, they reduced the cost of expansion. I don't want to lose how much fun empire expansion is.
It wouldn't bother me not to have this. This was really in response to John's idea. I had mixed fealings when Civilization 4 made it unfeaseable to have to mant cities. I didn't like the fact that I now have a dinky empire. I did like the fact that now my tech was now in a real world time frame, I didn't have a problem with the fact that the Ai was now able to keep up with me. This was really more of a response to John than something I was answering more than what I want. My personal experience is that the Ai usually wanted peace after awhile; because, they couldn't beat me. One fearure I would like to see is that instead of surrendering the whole empire over to someone they become a vassal state like they do in Distant worlds.
Regarding expansion, I think the three of us are dancing around the same concept: Balancing expansion with costs. There's a lot to be said for the shameless land run that should begin any game of GC, but it certainly shouldn't be entirely without cost or limitations.
What if those concepts were combined into a single one like... an "Administrative Point" system? You can expand and settle all you like...you're just flinging people out into space. But you can only *govern* as many planets as you can afford to run (using logistics, technology, finances, etc). Those you can't directly govern must operate autonomously, like independent colonies (similar to vassals) or autonomous districts. If you don't have the Administrative infrastructure to "manage" all of your planets, you need to give them that autonomy...and planets with autonomy tend to get their own ideas about how they should be administered. That would move the needle a lot on your internal government composition...possibly building a "separatist" faction that could result in any number of potential difficulties...beginning with a polarized government containing a lot of disparate factions and ending with open rebellion.
I've never seen it done quite like that before. It certainly would add a huge value to building up your "Administrative Infrastructure" to help expand not just your Civilization, but your ability to control it.
My fear is that a lot of what is being talked about are ideas that would make playing on larger maps more restrictive than playing on small maps. Look at what happened between Civ 2 and Civ 3. The cost of expansion became prohibitive. Sid Meier even admitted that he didn't like large maps. It was also reported that large maps were an afterthought added after a hue and cry about there being no large maps to play.
I find the large maps and long playing time in GC1 and GC2 fun. I know some people don't, which is why map size choices are available in GC1 and GC2. Just don't try to make GC3 a small map only game. Adding constraints to expansion is ok as long as it doesn't go overboard. Keep large maps fun.
I think Gal Civ 2 already does a good job in limiting expansion. For example, you can land rush all you want and colonize many worlds, but I have found (too often to my dismay) that if I colonize too many too quickly and try to build out too quickly I rapidly run out of money and basically you get so far behind technologically and morale wise that you wind up losing the planets anyway. Plus you can only rush build so many colony ships at a time before you hit a similar financial wall. I used to worry too much about not getting enough planets at the beginning, but after many, many, many, MANY games, I found that I really didn't need to worry about starting out with lots of worlds. If you develop your cultural influence wisely and place your influence satellites right, you wind up getting a lot of planets anyway near the middle - early end of the game due to culture flip.
I think the current model for expansion costing in Gal Civ2 works okay, and IMHO doesn't really need a whole lot of tweaking.
All I have to compare Civilization 2 to is Freeciv, but on Freeciv the war weariness was annoying making it hard to expand. I didn't find an expantion problem on civilization 1 and 3. I did find a expansion problem on civilization 4. Didn't know that large maps were an afterthought, Sid and I probably wouldn't get along on this issue considering that Teturkministan was my favorite scenario. I was just trying to solve someone else's problem. Whatever they do on this I'm sure I will get over it. I find the large maps and long playing time in GC1 and GC2 fun. I know some people don't, which is why map size choices are available in GC1 and GC2. Just don't try to make GC3 a small map only game. Adding constraints to expansion is ok as long as it doesn't go overboard. Keep large maps fun.[/quote]
I agree, but the problem is not map sizes, but the Ai is insanely fighting wars. Personally this is not a problem for me. Matter of fact this really doesn't happen to me. This could be the fact that I don't like cheating by arbitrary bonuses to the Ai. So I play tough instead, Do you have any ideas on this.
[quote who="IronBat1" reply="70" id="3424108"]
I think Gal Civ 2 already does a good job in limiting expansion. For example, you can land rush all you want and colonize many worlds, but I have found (too often to my dismay) that if I colonize too many too quickly and try to build out too quickly I rapidly run out of money and basically you get so far behind technologically and morale wise that you wind up losing the planets anyway. Plus you can only rush build so many colony ships at a time before you hit a similar by financial wall. I used to worry too much about not getting enough planets at the beginning, but after many, many, many, MANY games, I found that I really didn't need to worry about starting out with lots of worlds. If you develop your cultural influence wisely and place your influence satellites right, you wind up getting a lot of planets anyway near the middle - early end of the game due to culture flip.I think the current model for expansion costing in Gal Civ2 works okay, and IMHO doesn't really need a whole lot of tweaking.[/quote. If someon]
Interesting solution to the problem influence instead of morale, economics, and trading. I agree that the solution is fine, but you can always make something better if you try hard enough. If someone is has a problem with my solution then go ahead and leave this alone. I never had a problem with this part of the game except it is unbalanced with how the Ai tries to work this. The Ai is really what needs fixed more than any other thing on this issue.
I've played master of orion 1 and 2. Didn't like the game is was to primitive for me. I definately didn't think that they had a better or more complete ability option. I think the civilization screen could be expanded though. Can you defend how Masters or orion has a better ability option for mr. I found it limited next to Galactic civilizations.
word
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
