The problem of putting what is galciv into language is because it is more of a feeling being portrayed vs. a set rule-book of what is and what isn't galciv.

To get an idea of this feeling of what is galciv, look at GalCiv 2 and 1. Take what is at the core of those games... GalCiv 1 had you wonder to each star and colonize particular systems and travel the entire map (think endless space without space lanes) for interaction with stars. Then we upped the game to Gal Civ 2, where most people have a well defined image of Galactic Civilizations.

A lot of Galactic Civilizations follows a general 4x rule book. Keep the players time more on the main map vs. any sub-window. The exception to this feature is the shipyard where designing ships can be crucial (but this is not necessary, and can be quick for more users).

The other feature that defines Galactic Civilizations is the fact the map is an abstract of time vs. distance. The number of hexes on the map does not indicate a distance it indicates a time. The space folding works strangely throughout the galaxy and the folding of space moves at varying distances through space. That is also why you have a limited galaxy that you cannot pass a certain point. The way the hyper drive works prevents infinite travel into deep space.

The adjacency bonus fit into Galactic Civilizations as it is a seemless addition to the planet screen. We already had a planet screen where we may place buildlings down, and so in Gal Civ 2, it was a matter of room for the building vs. placement, but there were bonuses that kept the player thinking I want this particular building there. Now, take that to another level if there is a building that provides the same bonuses to adjacent tiles, then it is like there was a resource to take advantage of in that spot. Hence, it was the same idea that was already in Gal Civ 2, but moved to an advanced form. Doing a sim city version of the game moves the game away from 4x standard rulebook of keep these subscreens short. Recall you may have 100+ planets and playing sim city for a short while on 100+ planets would take a long time.

Adding resources to the main map to harvest. That is a new feature and follows more the Civilization idea. It is not a far fetched idea as we were able to mine asteroids and so this is just a simple modification of let us mine for a special resource instead of adding production. The foundation was there it was just improved.

The dual que system of Galactic Civilization. The initial removal of this led to a large uproar here on the forums. Many ideas were thrown out to re instate the dual que. Eventually the idea of the starport was realized to be placed on the map. It fit into lore and provides interesting gameplay role to this game. I would call this a NEW feature entirely and not an improvement on old features so much. The idea of moving the ship building to another much more vunerable structure opens up a lot more strategies and may provide a easy mop-up stage at the end of the game. We'll see when the AI and more play testing are done.

Why is 3D not Gal Civ? For one all known galaxies live on a plane. Although that plane is skewed one direction or the other, they are on the plane. The nature of the Gal Civ is to have a fixed distance points abstracted in large squares / hexes (now) This system would be done in a large 3 Dimensional lattice. One it is Difficult to select an individual cube from a large 3D lattice. Secondly, each system you encounter would be on the plane and so we would have 3 different types of solar systems indicating the directions we have cubes stack in the lattice. Hence, from each solar system i would have to re-orient my camera to look at the system in the easiest way to get a sense of where things are located. Recall that Gal Civ is a game that keeps the map simple at its core. The move to 3D will just unnecessarily complicate matters, especially since solar systems live on planes anyway.

All Gal Civ 3 is doing is not showing the 3d variation or orientation to make things easier to read and see. Without this, I would always spend my time looking at a horizontal plane of the solar system no matter the orientation. I look at the exercise of benefits of 3d map vs. difficulty of use on the 3d maps. If our computers were designed to handle a 3d map, then movement and such would be soo much easier. But I suspect that technology is a long way off. 

Galaxies are only a plane on distances in the order of 10k+ lightyears. The plane of the milky way is still 1000 lightyears thick, so unless traveling 1000+ light years is easy for you (which it is not for any galciv level civ), it really is by no means a plane. I just wanted to point that out it't not a argument for or against 3d.

I think most people here are more or less in agreement in any case: innovation is a sliding scale, to little and your game is to stale, to much and it's not the same game anymore. 

What galciv is to me...a void. A void where ideas and creativity fall into and new things emerge. So when someone says "this isn't galciv" I hear, "its not apart of galciv yet" for everything changes.

Everyone has a different ideology on this it seems, but I hope we all know that there is no one apart from yourself that will ever see this game the same way you do. Unless you believe in the first paragraph.

DARCA.

I simply do not understand the issues people have with tactical combat.  It adds depth and fulfillment.

On the Steam forums I have suggested and continue to suggest, that it Tactical Combat can be auto resolved, or minimally resolved, or played out, depending on the players needs at the time.

So you never want to engage in tactical combat?  Fine.  Auto Resolve.

Built a new class of vessel and want to see how she performs?  Chose Cinematic Resolution

Want to command your vessels to victory, turn by turn, all 200 of them?  Click the Fight! button.

One can find innovation in bettering a system of turn-by-turn tactical combat.  I simply cannot see why adding another dimension to the game is a problem.  We're paying enough for it.

If I repeat myself (which I don't really intend to), I apologize, but . . .  it seems to me that erring on the side of giving players MORE choice, not less, ought to be the goal of a great game.    You may not choose to fight every battle on the map tactically, but you may choose 1 or 2. 

ESPECIALLY when you factor in the multiplayer element, tactical combat can be very rewarding, and the difference between a guaranteed win and a stunning upset.  Isn't that what strategy games are all about?

Captain Tolan T. Grimm, Grand High Poohbah,

Glorigoth

The Grimmian Union

The problem with adding TC is that it would probably destroy the battle viewer system, which while good in GC2, I expect will be great in GC3.  I can't imagine anything cooler than designing a fleet of starships and watching a dramatic fleet battle unfold.  

If I want to play tactical battles I'd play a tactical game.  I want to play a civilization expansion, empire building game, so I play Civ and GalCiv.  It's two different kind of games.  I'm not opposed to making pre battle strategic choices, but clicking each little ship and clicking a target over and over seems boring and tedious to me.

I like a lot of the new features in GC3 even though most of them aren't in the alpha.  I don't like Black-Holes as seen in the last podcast, will they gobble up ships? doesn't matter there just so unrealistic but then there is an option to disable them. 

And I'm also a longtime player of the GalCiv series [check my join date].  Twilight was the best version but it had its shortcomings although the ship designer wasn't one of them, unlike the planetary invasion screen.   I would like more Tactical Combat but not complete micro-management, and I'm guessing that that's what I'll end up with via the Fleet Designer, except I'll probably still have a mediocre Planetary Invasion screen and mechanic.

And for all those who probably were never in the GalCiv1 beta and just have memories of Dread Lords or later, I know that 3-D maps were introduced at some stage in a Beta version although you will not find any trace of it now as only final version builds remain.  I will admit that the 3-D version didn't last long, only 1 or 2 iterations of beta but it was implemented in 32-bit technology ten or more years ago.  It was only a map of around 15x15x3 or maybe 25x25x3 , the size is immaterial - the point is I know it existed in a GalCiv with Windows'95 with 6-faced Cubes.  it worked well and it puzzles me still as to why it was abandoned.

So basically I agree with the original poster and agree with whoever it was that said a lot of you just want GalCiv 2.5, although I'm begining to believe that GalCiv2.5 will probably be Fun when it's first launch final version is available.

In a game called total war, I don't expect there to be a balance anywhere.

Schaefespeare, show me a 3D map design on a 2D monitor that doesn't get garbled and confusing when rotating or moving units.  Also show me a non-complicated way to move a ship from X,Y,Z to X1,Y1,Z1 by point and click versus typing coordinates every time. 

I agree I would love a playable 3D design, however, I haven't seen any that are practical.

Hexes are excellent to have on a planet landscape whereas a serviceable 3D map (or a clever illusion of one) would be tremendous to have in a space game. Oh well, maybe next time.

Here's hoping that this evolution will be a success.

If what you said is true, then there would be proof for it out there. Screenshots, forum posts, mention of it in previews, etc. Also, changing the map from 2D to 3D (and back again) is non-trivial, so you'd expect there to be dev journals about why the devs decided to make those changes. However, I couldn't find anything.

From what I've read, the beta for GalCiv 2 began March 2005 (here is a post for Beta 2) and ended early 2006 (Frogboy's IT'S GOLD post is from Feb. 7th 2006). Maybe Lucky Jack, or anybody else who was in the GalCiv 2 beta, can clarify how beta-access worked back then. However, if it was anything like it was for DA and TotA, then you'd at least need a Stardock-account to buy the game. So, unless you've got an older account, or knew somebody who got access to the beta, I don't see how you could've played it.

I'm not calling you a troll, or a liar, but I do question your memory. Are you absolutely certain, that you are not thinking of a different game? Sword of the Stars 1 has a 3D map, and it was still in beta in April 2006.

Quit saying that nonsense, galciv is a great game but its not a holy unchanging entity. It changes player to player and over time since the very first iteration. (remember that chart brad posted about the evolution of galciv?)

People asking for this should be catered fairly, this has been asked for many times from games spanning the years. Space games need space combat, it makes sense, it fit, its fair.

Whatever game experience you used as a example, thing about that Vs now. SD a heavily rooted 4X game maker that with all the planned announcements is definitely not going to forget about making this game for combat. In fact its the opposite.

So think when its all done and released, this can be a expansion that can't effect core 4X mechanics and makes moderate players like me happy.

Although, many say allow us to auto-resolve and you get the same effect as a tactical battle, the game resources will be spent trying to ensure that the tactical battles are fun. More importantly, it is inevitable that the tactical battles will favor the player and thus not playing the tactical battles we'll not have as good as a result without. More importantly, things that we could tactically solve easily, but auto-resolve doesn't do a great job doing, it will cause a lot of frustration because we know it is an easy battle tactically, but auto-resolve is not doing the same things.

Not to mention, a multiplayer tactical battle game inevitable takes an extremely long time unless you eliminate them entirely.

I would rather the developers spend more of their time on the overall picture aspects of the game and add a micromanaged tactical battle interface, if necessary, as an expansion pack. I would like to see a cinematic view of the battles at the very least.

Wrongo

Can't you see! This is the secret to world peace! It starts with having tactical combat!

Really dude a real minority is TBS gaming, combat would make it less of a nitch and more of a well rounder for most people in the world since smart games are rare and combat is plenty, so let it be tactical

Enough about moo, I hear so much about it and its so old its a different era...IT MAKES ME SICK!!! ( )

All I want is what I want, and as it happens we both don't want a game lacking in 4X. When you think about it, the stars have finally aligned and this is a great time for both. We both want a good, smart, and sophisticated 4X that gets better and better. We both don't want real combat to ruin the games lovely features in the process, neither do you. I think its great to have and as it turns out, we actually agree!

DARCA.