Just found out about this game today, and I am incredibly exited! This is something I posted a while back in the Galactic Civ 2 forums. Of course, at the time a third game was only a remote possibility for me, but now I'm re-posting it so that it's at least in the right place on the chance some of this might be useful.
Ok, I really do love this game. I got it a long time ago and have played it on and off, but there have been a few, ever present problems for me.
The space battles just don't cut it. Often I really can't tell who's shooting and whose shot with beam weapons. Missiles and mass drivers will fly up, stop when they get to their target, and then blow up a second later. Worst of all, weapons do not rotate and will literally shoot out the wrong way, or right through their ship. Weapons absolutely either all need to be turret-style, or there need to be firing arcs. Ideally, we should have both--fixed weapons and turrets, with the former only being able to shoot where the ship's pointing. Armour and Missile Defences are just different coloured shields.
The ship design also never turns out as well as I think it will. You just...slap some parts on and it's actually pretty hard for me to make the design look good or original. It is also not quite as in-depth as I'd like. For example, has anyone heard of the game Star ruler? In that game, you have for example power generators, a bridge, life supoort, ammo caches, and how big or small these things are actually makes a difference. The downside is you can't change the actual shape of the ship, you can't really chose where subsystems go and all the ships look pretty much the same, not to mention pretty bad graphics. However, you have so much design flexibility. If you want you can do a load of research into one weapon type, construct a massive ship with a massive weapon and use it as a death-star. Give your life-support systems an emergency generator so that the crew doesn't die if main power is disabled in combat, or if you want just make the ship a drone.
My point: I'd really like to see a sort of combination of these two games: what I feel Galactic Civ should have been. I'd really like to see this game modernised, even though I love it as it is anyway. Give us sins of a solar empire's battles, more complex design options and have all those options mean something.
And now I think of it, here's some other ideas of mine:
Land battles. Another thing I really want to see in this version is the ability to customize your land forces as you customize your starships. I want the option to design modular infantry and vehicles. I'm not talking about aestetic deign, I mean building your ground units from, well, the ground up, just like you do with starships. Options to choose between making at a walker or having it levitate, or having a flying vehicle, would add a lot of depth to the customization. I want to see all three weapons types--missiles, mass drivers and beams, transferred to ground combat, as well as being able to use armour, shields and point defence. There also needs to be different types of weapons--from heavy rocket launchers and railguns to more standard beam weapons to handheld phasers, I want to be able to chose. Most of all, I want to see it all in a 3D environment, and in general be as polished and in-depth as things are in space.
Another big feature I want to see is the ability to control your units. Not really much to say about this one--I just thing being able to actually take charge and make tactical as well as strategic decisions will add a lot to the game.
So, here's a summary of my main ideas, in order of priority
-Updated graphics and combat mechanics
-More meaningful and in-depth customization, extending to more than just weapons, defences and engines and having size make a difference.
-Ground combat visuals to match space. Make it 3D at the very least.
-Customization for ground units--not necessarily as in-depth as space, but still sophisticated.
-Research for ground units
If this game can do these things, then I am confident it will be successful. I know this is very early, but from what little info is available on the features, I'm a little worried. There really doesn't seem to be anything new here. Personally, I think that this game needs to bring in some innovations to compete with the other stuff on the market, because the amount of features that made a good game back when 2 was released does not cut it now. I hope that this can be helpful in some way.
Stardock has made it clear they are overhauling the space combat, and in the recent Q&A session they spoke about improving ground combat.
I can't see if you're a founder or not, but we have a "Founder's vault" with a variety of pictures and sound files available to us. In these pictures it is very apparent that there has been a massive improvement to the ship creator, and there are now weapons that are classified as "Efficient" or "Long Range" with comparable defenses like "High Density" and "High Efficiency". We don't yet know what these mean, but they hint at much more in-depth, tactical fighting. Additionally, Stardock has confirmed that range, transversal/heading, stellar topography and other things will play a significant role in battles.
Still, you're a little bit early to learn the details of the game! lol
Maybe they might already be implementing what you said?
I'm not a founder, so I didn't know any of this stuff. Anyway, from what you've said, I now have higher hopes.
Personally I'd like to see the diplomacy overhauled big time. My favorite thing about GCII is that you can win the game without use of force. I loved playing civilizations against one another and I want more dynamic diplomacy options. More resources to trade and also to give some "conditions" to diplomacy. For example, I would like the option to tell a civilization that I would no longer trade with them until they end a war with another civilization or come to my aide in a war I am in. There are a lot more ways to use this idea and I would love to see Stardock do something like it.
Good point--I agree, diplomacy was one of my favourite things about GCII because it was so in depth. Still, more options would definitely help. Maybe some tools for war co-ordination with allies, like being able to get a conference with all the guys on one side of a war and say "this fleet will attack station X" and that sort of thing. At the very least, I'd like to have the ability to just mark a target.
Similar to Majesty games' flags maybe? Sort of attack flag, preferably with date, for coordinated attack, as always, determined by slowest ship. Defensive flag could meam patrol area, or target that should be protected. "Don't even think about getting there" flag could scare away low-level ships, set to auto-explore.
It could be cool being able to ask something like "would you be so kind to lend me your marines here, so I could lend you my aircraft carriers over there". Asking your allies to help you with industry, if your manufacturing is insufficient, and theirs, for some reason, is idling, or lending them a hand when they are in need, sort of galactic lend-lease, or "outsource" - placing/requesting manufacturing among could have another good side - in this case you'll knew those few grands billions of credits will be placed in your friends' treasury, not some mitrosoft's.
As for research, they also could be "shared", I don't mean just asking for or giving away tech, I mean joint research, sort of parallel pool, when two civilizations unite and develop "mutual" technologies together, and later could use their ally's research station to study something unique. Some additional bonus could be applied, to make such an more attractive, than usual research and sharing "mutual" tech afterwards.
These are all really great ideas! I especially like the idea of placing a flag to establish a "no fly zone" if you will. It would allow you to much better understand AI intentions--if they went into a restricted area you know they're probably not being friendly. It would also open up opportunities for awesome diplomatic crisis's.
And on that note, I'd also like some more diplomatic options in that area. Say, for example, somebody violates a restricted zone, I want to be able to send them a warning or a war declaration and cite that as a reason, so that the AI knows what it's about and can respond dynamically. Emphasis there is on the ability to send them a warning. Also, you know when you see that first influence starbase pop up in your space? What I've always wanted to be able to do is demand that they "Dismantle Influence Starbase 581." Or if a ship's crossed your borders, demand that it is removed, and stuff like that.
Flags could be of two types.
First is simply signal for your AI ally (or human ally, in case you don't want/cannot chat, or use microphones). No fly zone could mean either dangerous area for them (or your subordinate "free roaming" ships of smaller classes), or where is anomaly of possible danger (space shark ), or area of your common enemy you prefer not to provoke yet, instead build better fleet and invasion force.
Second is, as you said, more of diplomatic nature, probably through United Planets, if we powerful enough, we could close our (or someone else's) airspace for flights either completely, thus forbidding anyone (with possible exception of allies) to fly through, or close airspace for military ships only, or close airspace for everyone but freighters, nence allowing trade, but forcing nations to keep their fleets only inside their borders. Also it could be unilateral decision, when nation (or even minor race) closes their airspace for fly throughs of all ships. Whether is to break such restriction, or pay them for use of airspace, is up to players. For example, should you happen to be located between two nations trading with each other, in case everyone's airspace is closed, you can allow them to fly through for small sum of money. Especially if you have well-developed space with space stations, that, say, improve speed and range of your ships, allowing them to fly faster and farther. Should you allow other nations' freighers to use same advantages, I guess it would be worthy to pay for that. After all, we pay for using highways.
Similar to Majesty games' flags maybe? Sort of attack flag, preferably with date, for coordinated attack, as always, determined by slowest ship. Defensive flag could meam patrol area, or target that should be protected. "Don't even think about getting there" flag could scare away low-level ships, set to auto-explore.It could be cool being able to ask something like "would you be so kind to lend me your marines here, so I could lend you my aircraft carriers over there". Asking your allies to help you with industry, if your manufacturing is insufficient, and theirs, for some reason, is idling, or lending them a hand when they are in need, sort of galactic lend-lease, or "outsource" - placing/requesting manufacturing among could have another good side - in this case you'll knew those few grands billions of credits will be placed in your friends' treasury, not some mitrosoft's.As for research, they also could be "shared", I don't mean just asking for or giving away tech, I mean joint research, sort of parallel pool, when two civilizations unite and develop "mutual" technologies together, and later could use their ally's research station to study something unique. Some additional
I like this in multiplayer this gives me the ability to mess with you from either perspective. Here you are talking nonthing cheesy.
Yeah. Another thing for a no-fly zone could be an area that you don't want people to get teir sensors on--for example, a military buildup or a terror star under construction, so you're not just restricting your whole territory--just a sector or something.
Also, the whole thing with war shouldn't be so absolute. Say somebody flies into my restricted territory and I open fire upon them. That's different to if I used a terror star on one of their systems--they violated restricted territory, I responded as such. This should not immediately result in war, but instead give the option for either the situation to escalate or diffuse through some heated negotiations (or the lack of them.) My point is, a single skirmish should not result in all out war, it should be more layered. So, in response to my firing on their ship, they deploy fleets along my border, and the situation progresses with me demanding their removal and stuff like that. My point is, a really exciting aspect of GC2 is the massive galactic cold wars, and I think this should be expanded upon. I, for one, really enjoy the Cold Wars in every game.
Mispost
How you're going to achieve that? Tell sensor waves (or whatever means are used) - "just bend around that sector, we are not allowed to scan it"? Installing some sort of jamming system could be used to reduce scanner's efficiency, but close sector for scanning?
And it feels - reminds of all those stories about someone shooting down someone else, or forcing them to land and sent to internment camps and their vehicles were confiscated or interned too, unless diplomatic or any other solution. In the meantime, interned vehicle could be carefully studied.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind if we had an option of "borders", with different adjustments for them - from open, to open to friendly only, or fully closed. Sort of "this is our sovereign territory, tits taxes or FTFO!"
Could be nice, I like that.
As for the no fly zone, I think you misunderstand me. In GC2, you can only see something if you get a ship close enough. If you restrict that space, they can't fly a ship in and see what's there.
Yes, my bad. Sorry.
Trying to hide something would require closure of rather big space, with a hefty reserve, as tech will be going to progress further and there is a chance they'll be able to see through previously hidden area.
Though I imagine facial expression when there will be nothing, only huge pile of ships used to trick someone.
I think a no fly zone in which you let nothing through would (or should even) cause you to lose membership of the United Planets. However I do think it's a good idea in some limited way, although it should not just work technically, as in they should still be able to put military ships in your zone if you're not defending it but it could cause a quick downgrade in democratic ability and your relations or cause war .
Any sovereign race could close its airspace for anyone. Even now there are certain areas no one allowed to fly through, and those zones are closed even for country's own citizens.
You can offer certain corridor to other races, should they request one (or offer it as a "good will gesture"), and make it either free, or take some toll, like I said above, especially if you will allow use of your services, like starbases, and their modules (speed ones, for example). Or you can ask them trade with you too, on their way to other races.
Alternatively it could be possible to place exchange base at common borders, making you haul your own shit from there. Reason for creation of such bases or no-fly zones could include installations of surveilance equipment on your competitors' ships, including freighters, so other races could scan your territory without sending specialized recon ships in.
Forceful closure of airspace (or grounding their fleet) could be enforced through UP, should one race act aggresively against some others, so those other races could unite and make the agressor to cool down for a bit. Of course, agressor could be able to ignore decision, but not without consequences.
Of course, we should be able to ask permission to use either all, or some part of other races' airspace in form of "corridor", allowing us to fly faster, or bypass enemy's defenses this way.
I think if anyone chooses to close off his borders he should be allowed to. I think there should be as many options on this as possible.
2. There should be an option for all ships except yours.
3. There should be an option for all ships except freighters, constructors, colony, survey ships, and your military ships. Except yours
4. All ships except freighters, constructors, and colony ships. Except yours
5. All ships except constructors and freighters. Except yours
6. All ships except freighter s. Except yours.
I think you should be allowed to make trade routes where if you deviate you are trespassing, but you can physically deviate where you can be arrested if you are caught.
You could mouse over these no fly zones, so you don't have to designate your whole territory.
Instead of arbitrary throwing you off the council we take a vote on this.
Under a democracy or republic the senate could vote on this.
I think this should hurt your diplomacy. I mean if you are making people to fly their freighters and constructors around their space then why would they no be mad. If I had to move my warships around your territory when I'm fighting someone it would be annoying.
I think any designation of any territory should have to be enforced with ships from who is doing it. If they are not using ships and catching you then they are only threatening you. Your relationship with the other factions would determine how the galactic council handles this. If you have the influence to influence over half the civs then they would probably respect your no fly zone, but if you can't influence more than half the civs then they wouldn't respect your no fly zone, Except the militarily weaker ones would respect this out of fear.
I would like to be able to vote on arming the council otherwise they would have diplomatic penalties. Since I would probably vote against this I would want to vote on this.
If something like this happens the council probably have to vote on boundaries of this civ. Because their would be transportation problems.
I think the council should be able to negotiate routes through your civ.
What ships are excluded here, satellites?
Generally I agree with your list, but I'd split it into "military" and "civilian" ships. Military ships are not subdivisioned into classes (with possible exception of transports, should you wish to provide landing for your allies evacuees), civilian ships are divided on types you listed and you can pick any from list. In case of starbase you may also allow other nations (supposedly friendly) to build starbases in your airspace, without building harmful modules (like influence-affecting) or simply let them use your starbases.
Possible outcomes of negotiations regarding passage or corridor request could be done in form similar to alignment missions, only with more options for each outcome. I mean I do not want to see how asking for trading route from someone could be considered evil, or, if you want to migrate to good, you should let anyone pass freely - what the hell for we activated closed airspace then?
As for transportation problem, that could affect only military or colonization-based actions, when time matters, while freighters bypassing around closed airspace could, actually, bring more profitssss. At least in theory. But we should be careful, to prevent exploiting this.
To answer your question other peoples military ships. Ok on one of my options I only let you not allow military ships except yours. This option lets in civilian ships. I also give you an option to not allow any ships except yours . I also tried to come up with any reasonable combination in between. I realize I didn't include Starbase options. The list could be modified. If you have another list you should probably give it. The original reason for someone closing off borders is constructor spam. I guess there could be others. If you are going to have this I think there should be every possible option that someone wants to do this. I was including the possibility some one might think differently than you. The truth is I don't necessary know this reasoning. The only thing I would do with this is mess with people on multiplayer. I think that this should be balanced diplomatically.
Something I forgot is that about sensors. It wasn't allowed to fly spyplanes over soviet airspace until an U2 was shot down by a Mig 25 then spying over other space was allowed. Not allowing sensors to probe your area is unfeasable, and yes with a cargo hull with really good sensors I could see a lot. What Stardock could do to remedy this is allow you to research stealth and cloak techs. These should take up space and have to be researched probably in the sensors tech tree.
I don't have exact list, but I gave my opinion above. Your airspace will be opened for you and, in case of multiplayer and locked teams, for your team-mates.
You can give your allies permission to use your airspace, and either allow them to use your infrastructure (starbases), build their own, as long as their influence starbases do not influence you to prevent borders' change, or "enjoy the travel as is". Unless some scripted "PLOT TWIST!"©™® and sides' change is going to be implemented, I'd suggest mutual use of starbases advantages by allied nations, and influence modules would affect both sides only positively. Say you build influence starbase on your border between you and your allies, or you both build starbases there, near each other. In your airspace starbase improves your race, in your allies airspace it improves them. Their influence is not overlapping with yours, and border worlds are not going to change sides, but influence from starbases will fight any intrusive influence from third parties.
But I digress. For nations that are not your allies, you can close your airspace permanently, or allow passage of certain types of ships, and, if you want, allow them to use advantages of your starbases, be that extented range, or speed, or anything else that could be implemented. For example, you at war with Drengin, Altarians at war with Drengin, but Altarians are not your allies - they are neutral to you. You can allow them to use your starbases advantages in fight against Drengin. This could change your stance with Altarians. Should you be neutral to Drengin and Altarians, regardless of war between them, allowing one side to use advantages of your starbases should change stance with both sides. That could lead to different diplomatic events, such as Altarians offering you something for supporting them, or Drengin offering you something to stop supporting Altarians. Of course they could try to threat you to change stance from neutrality to war...
Should you allow passage of third races ships through your territory, you can discuss terms of use, specifying classes of ships that could travel through (since there are few civilian ships, it wouldn't be too hard to have short list and boxes near them to check, to allow or close passage), and conditions of passage, sort of "no starbases construction within space, or "scanners off". Should they be caught violating rules, say, scanning your territory, you can exact diplomatic moves, up to interment of violating ship, and closing airspace for race.
Of course it should work both ways.
As for U2 and MiG-25, then if you mean U2 with Francis Gary Powers, than it was shot down by S-75 missile in 1960, while MiG-25 was introduced a decade later.
Though I find closing airspace and shooting down every violator to be rather interesting possibility in GC3.
Don't mind Stealth tech, but it shouldn't be ultmate, otherwise exploits possible. In Blitzkrieg series, sniper was nearly undetectable and allowed you to perform reconnaissance right under the enemy noses in real time.
Reduce of detection range seems to be best option - say if normal ships could be detected at range X, than stealth ship could be detected at range X-T, where T is tech-level of Stealth developed by you. Such ships should also have passive sensors with reduced range, and, probably, slower engines (or moving slower during stealth phase), to reduce signature. Still, wall of satellites should make it nearly impossible to pass through.
One possible solution could be delay between that stealth ship movement and opening of explored territory - sending that info in real time should immediately pinpoint ship's position to other factions. So unless your ship returned to your airspace, you'll have no idea what is seen.
Wow I could see allowing allies to enter your airspace. I think this option should be as flexible as possible. Even the Galactic council would try to negotiate a route through your territory. You do have an option to say no, or renegotiate the proposal. The irony of this is that it could be used as a lucritive proposal.
I thought it was a mig. It was a missile.
Going back to the senate voting on this. It doesn't make sense to go on who the leading party is, It would make sense for congress to consider who our neighbors is. What wars we had been in. The personality of race. How your economy is doing. How good you get along with your neighbors. Your trade routes. Your inflience. Your military strength. Everyone else military strength. Your ethics. Maybe the random events.
Well, they are your allies, it only would be wise to let them use your airspace. Maybe even share Survey ships' findings, to boost both nations. After all, you're allies. Otherwise, it is very strange alliance.
I'd rather see you dead little girl, than to be with another man static and clear alliances in GC, than some backstage scheming, changing sides three times a day, framing other races for your wrongdoings, and similar activity. Maybe they could became an interesting addition to GC, as they are with some other titles, but I like GC for being GC, and with those activities we follow same directions as with tactical combats - we go down in chain of command, to more micro, and we shouldn't. Regimental commander should command his regiment, not battalion, nor company.
Besides, game filled with tools allowing us to do so, will skyrocket to such paranoidal heights, so making any alliance will simply became meaningless: "oh, you entered with your fleet into our system, so you want to invade us, this should not be allowed, alliance revoked!"
IMHO, of course.
MiG was involved into accident, but it was MiG-19.
I don't remember saying anything about senate, my concerns were more with UP, not senate, especially if your regime is far from democracy, so it's more like "when I say jump, you jump".
But I like your idea, however, should certain planet refuse to open her space for foreigners, how big that "sovereign territory" of the planet should be? 1-2-3 hexes around? Or it simply wouldn't allow other races ships to land on specific planet for trade, repair or refuge? Or asking for some favors for voting for our idea, so we'll have new level of politics and diplomacy within, on planetary levels? Say, tax cuts, or construction of certain buildings, limiting migration level, to reduce population cap?
This is one of my hopes for GC3, that diplomacy takes a step forward in terms of depth and mechanics. Diplomacy in these Civ type games is always so basic and seems to be thrown in just because you need some way to communicate with the other Civs, but it seems so little effort is given to actually making Diplomacy an interesting, fun, strategic aspect of the gameplay.Being able to barter over anomalies, asteroid belts and planets would be a great feature. Offering promises of "spoils of war" would be a great addition to rally allies to your cause. Forming temporary coalitions as opposed to permanent alliances would be a great addition as well. Perhaps a coalition is formed just to defeat a particular race and then after that is accomplished the individual member races of the coalition go on their separate ways.However, what I would really love to see is that communication matters in diplomacy. I'd love to see a "mini-game" made out of diplomacy. Perhaps a screen where you are presented with a few different options in terms of how you communicate. You could select different phrases, then select a type of demeanor. This would mean that you really have to be careful about how you communicate with the various races. Perhaps some races respect a more authoritative tone, while others may want you to show more subserviance. The whole Yes/No/Request aspect of diplomacy is frankly really boring. I think by adding more elements to Diplomacy you can then actually utilize your level of diplomacy research in the game. If you know more about about communication and diplomacy and even through spying know more about a particular race, new options for communication open up for you as you progress through the Diplomacy/Communications tech tree. In the beginning you're left to kind of guess as to how to communicate with the races, how will you phrase your request or your statement and what demeanor will you use? Then as you research Diplomacy and learn more about the species from spying the Diplomacy "mini-game" opens up more options for communicating, gives you more subtle/detailed options for communicating and gives you something like a "chance of success" type read out. Your advisor could say something like "The Drengin are more likely to respond to a humbled request sir."As you become more powerful as a economy, as a military and as a diplomatic body, new options for communicating open up and the way in which the various races respond to you could change. Perhaps early in the game, when you are weak the Drengin will respond favorably to a humbled approach, but as you gain power and perhaps progress beyond them, then then respond more favorably to a stern approach.These are just quick ideas off the top of my head, but I think that Diplomacy can be changed/improved to be a legitimate, strategic and enjoyable game mechanic and not just something thrown in to list as a feature on the back of the retail box.
I really like this idea. You could choose to seal off all of your space to other empires or simply seal off smaller areas that contain things you want to hide or protect. The hexes could be assigned values to tell the game where your enemies are not allowed (or are allowed) to pass through. With that said you could actually create a corridor through your space (which you could toll if you wished) and also block the expansion of other empires by spreading outwards against their territory. You would of course need the firepower to follow through if they breached your space. Doesn't the Civ series do this? If they do I seem to recall it not really having much impact other than "Civilization X is traveling withing your lands." But I really don't remember.
Also, the same hex value system could be used to create actual physical neutral zones between empires in the game. Would be alot of fun.
while i like this idea doing it right is going to be tricky
i dont want to have to adjust every single tile step by step or have the aI reject a trade because ive made the exit or entrance to a corridor 1 tile space off of where they wanted it
on the other hand if the ai is to easy going i may just make a corridor that meanders through most of my space simply so i can tax them or to slow down an invasion fleet traveling from one side of my territory to another
I have a counter-opinion to the OP, and frankly its a constant debate in 4x games:
The notion of "strategic vs tactical" combat.
Well in truth, its actually three types of combat:
1) Strategic2) Tactical Position3) Tactical Execution
Strategic is similar to Gal Civ 2, combat is mainly about building the ships and fleets and slamming them into each other. While positioning mattered slightly with military starbases, 90% of the time how your built your fleets would ultimately determine the winner.
Tactical Positioned Combat is similar to Civ 5. How you position your units, what order you activate them, the terrain you use is all a critical component to the success of the combat. But the combat is still instantaneous, two armies clash, damage dealt, we move on.
Tactical Execution is similar to Master of Orion 2 or Fallen Enchantress. Each battle you get to control how the units move and fire and your skill has as much to do with the success of the combat as the fleet design is.
Personally, I really dislike tactical execution in my 4x games. Mainly because it becomes tedious very quickly. When I first played MOO2 or FE I loved the battles. The maneuvering was fun and interesting. And then I did it 10 times, and then 50 times, and then 100 times....and suddenly it became much less interesting.
Now the solution to that is the "auto resolver" but I haven't played a 4x game yet that had one worth a damn. I still remember playing the recent Age of Wonders 3, and after an autoresolve in a fight that I was "very likely to win" killed 75% of my army and both of my heroes....well lets just say I didn't use autoresolve anymore. Same thing has happened in FE as well for me, Endless Space....same problem.
Speaking of Endless Space, it sounds like the developers are considering a similar system for Gal Civ 3....in that the battle is mostly automatic but you make a few decision that can skew the outcome. I like Endless Space, but again same problem for me....tedious battle after tedious battle.
I know a lot of people like tactical combat, and that is why this debate will never be solved...but I personally hope Gal Civ 3 is not hugely tactical. I would be fine if your fleet positioning meant something (ala Tactical Positioned Combat)....that would be a fine compromise for me. But as long as the game expects to have a large number of fights, I want those fights to be as quick as possible. Else the game will never give me that "just one more turn" feeling that is the golden standard all 4x games try to meet.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
