I am worried about what they said about space battles in the interview

Machiavellianism

Join Date 12/2013

I am worried about what they said about space battles in the interview

Note To Everyone this is just some feedback from me a long time veteran player of this genera ( I know I am not the only one who played MoO)

As a gamer this is obviously a big part of the game we will want to enjoy after building and researching for lengthy games we want to see these big carriers launcher an army of interceptors OR shoot the many different weapons we see in other games lasers, rail guns, quark cannons, point defense vs fighters,

I hope you change your mind of the emphasis you put on battles otherwise you might just make a big mistake

if that you will not profit as much as you could form this game if the players don't see it as a must play again type of game

(don't want to see players getting bored with the game is all im saying after a play through and they think to themselves wow I wish they put more effort into this battle system COULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT GAME)

I played with possibly a thousand different players in these type games and yes we enjoy the space strategy and empire building but we also want to get into some battles and use tactics and special weapons to gain the upper hand

"But we don’t want to mislead people – Galactic Civilizations isn’t about fighting long tactical battles."

They don't need to be long, but tactical is what makes battle fun you could also have an option that allow you to skip the visuals in case you don't want to watch or control anything and let the a.i. do it ( i am sure you have this already as most other games do)

but if you have that skip feature I think it should not matter either way if its long or not as we could skip it if we wanted to

but say we wanted to watch it and try out some things then we could engage the battle hands on

"We want to keep players engaged at the empire level and fighting for planets and systems, not in ship to ship combat."

--- It sounds to me here that you want to take more of the fun out of this game

Players will get bored fast if they are simply clicking about the empire map the whole time

-- they will want to immerse themselves into good combat every once in a while plain and simple its what makes a game fun

same thing with ground combat people would love to engage in ground combat every once in a while they want to feel the enemy crush beneath the might of there invasion force with shock troopers and tanks may be some tactical missile launchers

I made a post here

https://forums.galciv3.com/451675/page/1/#3438022

To the developers keep up the hard work me and my friends looking forward to see this

Locked Post +1 Karma

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

DevDesigner

Quoting Tolan_Grimm,

reply 72

Perhaps I should have given my $99.00 to the developers of Lords of the Black Sun.

If you spent your $100 with the hopes that SD would turn GC into a completely different game, then yes, you may have made a mistake.

Quoting Space Voyager,

reply 75

Oh the drama.

People, this is at least the third thread on combat. Everything that can be has been answered. We need to wait and see. What the hell?

If people try to fundamentally change my beloved GC, there will be drama.

Successfully updated karma reason!

OsirisDawn

Join Date 09/2004

+30

Quoting Tolan_Grimm,

reply 72

Quoting charon2112,

reply 70

http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/88762/Galactic_Civilizations_is_not_Master_of_Orion

Very interesting. I wish I had read that article before. Frogboy is philosophically dead set against Tactical Combat. I had hoped in the 10+ years since that was written that he had evolved his thinking on this, but it's clear he hasn't. He enjoys playing spreadsheets. As do some of you.

Perhaps I should have given my $99.00 to the developers of Lords of the Black Sun. Or buy a copy of Distant Worlds Universe for a friend.

I will shut up about Tactical Combat now.

All you do with tactical battles is trade one spreadsheet (strategic battle) for multiple spreadsheets (tactical battles). Ist just broken down some more.

Thats how it feels to me anyway and i think it is ultimately not worth it. *shrug*

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting charon2112,

reply 70

Ading tactical combat would dramatically change GalCiv, and IMO not for the better. Let me describe how GalCiv is:

You design ships, you arrange fleets, you send your fleets to attack other fleets, then the best part, watching the battle unfold (which could be done in a more dramatic fashion, and I hope this is addressed in GC3).

This is what GC is, and I love it this way. Adding TC, would destroy the battle viewer, and turn GC fleet battles into little more than 'advance wars' for the game boy. This IMO would destroy the joy of watching your fleets do battle with the enemy. That's not to say that tactical combat games aren't great and don't have their place, they do. But it's not what GalCiv is all about.

Perhaps we all need to take a breath and read Brad's wise words in the link below, they're as true today as ever.

"...But Galactic Civilizations has always been a strategic game. It's never been a game about tactics. It's literally a class of civilizations."

http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/88762/Galactic_Civilizations_is_not_Master_of_Orion

Watching the battles unfold with out any imput was the most unsatisfying and frustrating thing about GS2. And I'm not the only one that thought that. I can't remember how many times I've heard or said "This game would be totally great if there was Tactical combat." The frustrating part is that you would design these cool custom ships yet you had no control over them. GS2 was a good game and the only thing it really needed was TC to make it great. You don't have to give up anything else in the game in order to have TC and I don't under stand why some people think this.

Personally if they had TC I would never ...EVER use auto resolved because it is simply boring. See AOW3 or other AOW for an example of good TC. Then add that to the GC good Stratagy Elements and you will have one awsome game. And yes throw in the boring Auto-reolve for those that hate TC.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting admiralWillyWilber,

reply 73

The only opinion I have about tactical combat is no real time strategy please. I would like to see On ta better combat viewer though. More three dimensionaL. Please for the love of god no random tech trees. I want to see this as much as I would like to see right of passage agreements where the game will physically stop u from entering territory without them. The only problem i Had with civilization combat until civilization four is it didn't let u advance that well. I liked panzer generals method of advancement. I liked that soase gave you options for advaNcement. Besides needing a better combat viewer they need to do something when your ships gain in level. Heroes is an option for this besides I liked the fact that civilization offered great people. I don't understand why they just

TC should only be turn based. Not that RTS click-fest crap. If you have TC in a game it is not a slippery slope to RTS. I know several games that has Turn Based TC and they were good and they never went to RTS. I hate RTS with a couple of exceptions (Total War, Homeworld series.)

And if you want auto combat then it should be like the Viewer combat where you can just ship if you wish.

Tech Tree - Well I like a little randomness in the tech trees but not everything should be random. Also discovering tech or trading for tech should also factor into it as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!