When I read GalCiv thinking of what is 4X strategy game in this article, I understood why GalCiv, although being a great game, still falls behind Sid Meier's Civilization. It is because they do not understand the greatest advantage that Civ has compared to GalCiv - as it is written by Draginol in his article "what is a 4x strategy game" - they think that eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate phases follow each other consequently - when one phase ends, the next begins.
This thinking is completely wrong and Sid Meiers Civilization proves that! The secret advantage that Civ has is that they make those 4X work simultaneously!
As I have already commented in this article, " It is the mix of those 4 EXes that compliment each other and that makes the game exciting, when those 4 work SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is why [early game is so interesting - because all 4eXes at the beginning are there and have not ended yet and] late game currently becomes far less interesting - because there is only 1 (!!!) EX left and that is EXtermination. But imagine if my proposal was there - if even in late stages there still was EXploration and EXpansion possible (and thus EXploitation, logically). It could be entirely different experience than that of now existing when all that is left in late stages is to manage monster fleets in monster maps.
Here is how those 4X work simultaneously for Sid Meier's Civ, throughout the whole game session:
eXploration: revealing map is only the initial phase of eXploration and even this first step is not without its challenges as barbarians always pose danger to scouts. But as time goes on, there are new and new things to explore - the strategic resources being the most obvious. Those reveal with time and effort and have huge impact in the game. It can be said, that the exploration of strategic resources is a way to continue eXploration phase throughout the whole game, because strategic meaning of the map changes. Not completely but in a balanced way, notably. The same applies to archeological ruins and, to some extent, the Compass technology, when players are able to travel ocean tiles. Since unability to travel the ocean in initial phase postpone the eXploration, there are multiple levels of eXploration that makes it a race to compete in and that have duration longer than just initial phase - eXploration takes place in multiple levels throughout the whole game. The child in us wants to explore with wonder, be amazed with new possibilities the toys/game map has, time and time again. And Civ gives us that the best way they can come up. But GalCiv... Heh... Exploration ends as soon as 1st ship travels through fog of war...
eXpansion: again, claiming territory is not a phase that starts at one point and ends in another, just to let the next phase begin. The cities grow the whole time, throughout the game in Sid Meiers Civilization, making eXpansion a phase that work simultaneously with other three X phases, throughout the whole game. Obviously, growing a city is completely different from growing/building a planet in GalCiv where a planet consists of flat, buildable tiles. Yes, there is a growing/eXpansion aspect and tile bonuses add a little spice, but it falls far behind from that Civ has, where you have multiple, MULTIPLE factors that take part into city development. In Civ, a city truly eXpands. For GalCivs planet it is less so, because number of tiles is predefined, the tiles are even in nature, understandably(?) you do not have to compete for planet tiles with neighbour civilizations and fewer factors take part in development in general.
eXploitation: obviously, eXploitation is a progressive phase in Civ when you can improve the improvements throughout the whole game, no matter if they are city districts or casual tile improvements. The same can be said for GalCiv's starbases. But, obviously and unfortunately Sid Meiers Civ is far better in its variety. In Civ you can "eXploit" [improve] just about anything, while in GalCiv you improve starbases that eXploit only strategic resources (durantium, thulium, antimatter, prometheon or etherium). Planetary resources has recently being added with Crusade, but even those cannot challenge the variety that can be improved in Civ. Yes, you can build different kind of starbases that give you bonuses, but I do not consider that eXploitation the same way a tile is eXploited/improved in Civ.
eXterminate: well, yes, that can progessively go on the whole time for sure, in all games, no matter be it Civ, GalCiv or else. And players abuse this option to full extent not necessarily because they prefer it, but also because it is the only option left in the late stages. Unfortunately.
I think I have made my main point why Civ is a game so good others can only aspire to - it is because in Civ all those 4 eXes work SIMULTANEOUSLY, an advantage that no other game has perfected so well than Civ.
Why this post is in the "Future ideas"? Because there is a space to improve GalCiv, no matter how good we value it already. And, perhaps, there is a thing or 2 that GalCiv devs could learn from the best 4X strategy game there is - Sid Meiers Civ.
Planet (including dead) eXploration? Nebulae eXploration? There are plenty of room to invent not-so-hard-to-do features, that would change now existing 4X order to simultaneous 4X. It takes some effort, but it is possible for GalCiv to SURPASS the all time leader, the Civ, both in sales and fanbase.
I love Civ V and VI about the same that I love GC3, although I don't play Civ V anymore because VI was a huge improvement for me. I also very much enjoy Beyond Earth, although it's based on Civ V, so I don't really play it much anymore either.
Between Firaxis and Stardock, I go in surges. I played Civ V and Beyond Earth almost exclusively as GC2 was winding down in its lifecycle, then took up Civ VI for over a year just to get the hang of it. "Over a year" must be explained, however. I play these very long games with slower timelines. Although I enjoy the saga-length games, there could be weeks or MONTHS between sessions and between the end of one game and the start of a new one for me. I'm an adult with a full time job and other responsibilities, so I need to find a balance in life; just like in the games I play.
No sweat, I still made sure I was a founder for GC3, and took that one up just before we entered the era of the Cruseade. For the last couple months, I've played GC3 exclusively, even though there was a major Civ VI update just as I transitioned. I'll go back to Civ probably as the summer ends in a couple months, or whenever I feel like it.
I tell you, life is GOOD having both of these games in such a good, playable, and well balanced state. I feel so fortunate to have such a well-made genre of turn-based games!
I love them all for different reasons, of course. I especially enjoy the exploration aspect of all of these games, but the strategy of setting up my fleets and making other preparations for combat and conquest also has a very strong pull for me.
I think the OP only got it partly right. GC3 can learn from the Civilization Franchise, yes of course that's true.
But both games do some things better than the other, so Firaxis can also learn from Stardock just as much as the other way around. I sure do hope that there are a few people on both sides playing the games from the other companies.
At the annualized prices of these games, almost nobody needs to think of them as an "either/or" proposition. We can mostly afford BOTH if we really want. So rather than a competition, I think of this as a big pool party. Come on in, the water is almost perfect!
Hi,
No I don't care about graphics at all as long as I can discern them.
The point I was making was that I couldn't play the game at all with the "pretty" graphics - and perhaps I should have been more specific but before the better simplified graphical display for civ6 I couldn't really play that either in civ5. So effectively I found it unplayable, whatever it's other merits.
At least, I can play civ6 in the simplified mode and see what's going on - even if the diplomacy is dreadful (at least i did for a little while before giving up).
Cheers,
Jon
From the very beginning I felt that those planets' potential are not used. There could be tons of stuff to do, that could be there, but are not.
Let us eXplore those, dead and alive planets for some artifacts or other phenomena! Invent planetary tiles with some difference, more than just buildable/non-buildable tiles. Make places unique!
Alpha Centari Alien Crossfire still takes the cake for being the best of the "Sid" games
I suggested something along that lines a while ago (to no avail, but admittedly that is not so easy to implement and may not be to the taste of pure strategy players that like a maximally balanced game). I like some others like the exploration part of 4X games the most and so would enjoy more things to explore
Together with Colonization (the original, not the Civ 5 (? - cannot remember exactly) official mod remake.
First X is the best X! +1
Sadly devs are oblivious to this fact
Games like Alpha Centari had world features that were not always in the game but added some neat stuff... (Sargasso sea, Mount Planet, etc) It would be cool if Stardock were to incorperate known stellar things.. "Crab Nebula" "Stellar Foundry" etc... these could be turned off for people who want "balance" and turned on for those who want neat things to own..I'd love a utopia planet cluster with like four super worlds... etc...
That said... the shipyard projects do sorta allow us to explore dead worlds. I wish they had neat flavor text... it would also be cool if they were random in the value of what was explored.. like... nothing here.... moving on.. or SOOOOO this "dead world" we just found, pure gold. gain 10,000bc or something neat
I have to say GC III beats out the Civ editions. While I did enjoy the looks of Civ 5, the game play was ok and the AI was terrible. Civ VI bored the crap out of me and the graphics took a large step back. The engine was very slow too, with playing only 6 total players the game after 15 turns slowed to a lagging halt. I am running a i7 7700 quad core with 32g ram and an GTX-1080 vid card with 8g gpu ram.... Yet, GCIII I get blinding turns.
Find me another 4x game out there where I can play on a Ludicrous map with 75 civilizations with a pretty good AI, and any new game I can play any one of the 75 civs.... ????? You can't....
AI was just so weak - that ruined it for me.
one of the things civ does best is how it slowly reveals resources on the map. it makes you reevaluate decisions. gives new reasons for trade or war. it also gradually complicates the game. I've not played gc3 all through yet...but so far it seems the map is very much static.
those dead world's need to come alive in some way.
the minor civso in civ 5 were fairly well done in the way they gave bonuses, so an alternative to conquest. stellaris also handles minors well. gc3 is very weak on that front too. and these should be easy fixes or expansions as part of dlc.
I am totally a Civ fan and a Stardock fan, but I must say Civ5 is the better 4x strategy game because of the 3 X's: execution, execution, execution. The ideas are there, the concepts are there. The UX is actually better than Civ. Galciv3 is not executing to a finished product. And that is a recurring problem, because that plagued Elemental as well.
But I'm still going to play Galciv.
I beg to differ.
In Civ4 & Civ5 modders have the option to modify not just the XML/SQL (SQL is Civ5 only; I personally prefer SQL over XML a lot more, much cleaner and allows multiple mods to modify the same variables without having to replace the entire file every time) database entries of the game, but also the game engine logic itself (written/compiled in C++), along with the graphical user interface (Python in Civ 4, LUA in Civ 5).
- Don't like how AI evaluates what to build? Rewrite CvCityStrategyAI to consider more game variables/states, rather than wasting countless hours messing around with XML flavor/weight inputs.
- Don't like how certain map features (e.g. mountains/island chains) are being generated? The capability to create customized map generation scripts is all there and available to modify.
- Don't feel like certain tooltips or data overviews are informative enough? No problem, just create a getter function on the game engine side to expose to Python/LUA, and feed in the data to the appropriate tooltip or table!
As someone who has a few thousand hours in Civ5 I like the game - that much should be obvious. But, it is somewhat apples to oranges with a space game. Frankly, the real innovations I have seen are in Endless Legend and Stellaris/Paradox stuff. EL has the lovely art work, distinct civilizations, fabulous adjacency bonus(s), and the 3d landscape. Paradox hammered home the epic strategy slow to develop stuff.
Anyway, I played GalCiv2 a bit more than 3, 3 is superior in every way except that the starbase spam wasn't fun or attractive. I was going to give Crusade a try since I have played Stellaris for the past few months but frankly I am pissed at Stardock for not discounting it during the summer sale. As a long-time supporter of Stardock who purchased most of their games and the old windows 8 addons, not discounting it for the previous buyers who suffered thru the crappy first year of GalCiv3 is not only bad business but just plain stupid. Yes, I am disappointed at the company that I always thought was pretty customer appreciative. Goodby. Feel free to pass this to Brad.
Civ 6's GD forum has 5 active threads in the last 24 hours - this is on a AAA title released within the last 6 months. Civ's best days are behind it and I blame 1upt introduced in Civ 5. It (Civ in general) is no longer the 4x standard-bearer, and hasn't been for years now. It's a mobile game these days.
Thanks for the thoughts, guys! But it wouldnt hurt at all if you sticked more to the initial thoughts.
The purpose of this thread is not to judge which game is the best, but what GalCiv could learn from Civ. If somebody spoke about 4X, which X he likes best and why, it would be terrific!
I beg to differ.In Civ4 & Civ5 modders have the option to modify not just the XML/SQL (SQL is Civ5 only; I personally prefer SQL over XML a lot more, much cleaner and allows multiple mods to modify the same variables without having to replace the entire file every time) database entries of the game, but also the game engine logic itself (written/compiled in C++), along with the graphical user interface (Python in Civ 4, LUA in Civ 5). - Don't like how AI evaluates what to build? Rewrite CvCityStrategyAI to consider more game variables/states, rather than wasting countless hours messing around with XML flavor/weight inputs.- Don't like how certain map features (e.g. mountains/island chains) are being generated? The capability to create customized map generation scripts is all there and available to modify.- Don't feel like certain tooltips or data overviews are informative enough? No problem, just create a getter function on the game engine side to expose to Python/LUA, and feed in the data to the appropriate tooltip or table!
As much as I agree about Endless Legend, I wonder what "innovation" you found in Stellaris - besides the "swindle the players better than ever" innovation, through releasing a bare-bones Europa Universalis with pictures of aliens instead of flags on a star map instead of a continents map. That "game" should be completely illegal.
I'm sorry but your initial post (and even the subject line) came right out and judged Civ as the better game, and said it in such a way as to close off any possible thinking to the contrary. You posited a premise as correct beyond all doubt, setting up the conversation that has transpired thus far. And now you say we're not doing a good job of sticking to your premise?
I don't even have to re-read my first post on this to remember that I said that BOTH games can LEARN from EACH OTHER. And I'll add: ...if their makers want to.
Youre quite right, BIF, I admit. Its just that I wanted emphasis on that 4X stuff, not opinions which game is the best. If you read my initial post, you will see that ALL of it is about 4X and just a few lines - why civ is better in 4X aspects than GalCiv. But thats it - the thread is about 4X, mainly ignored aspect by the readers.
While I completely agree with you that BOTH games can learn from each other, you could admit that most comments are not about 4X, that I wanted to talk about.
Heres an idea I came up with for Galactic civilizations 3. This would require a certain number of arbitrary turns to call it the end game. At a certain number number of turns the game would basically get a reset. Gc referendums, galactic events, and anomolies. would get a reset on different events. Extreme planets would get different colonization events. Even the third end of the tech tree would get new tech branches. With totally different improvements, modules, and weapons. The current existing end third of the tech branches would also get new stuff.
That's fair, but this whole genre is 4X. I'm only here (or at Civ) because it's 4X, as are others, I'm sure. So now I'm even less certain than ever what you were expecting to get from this thread.
I don't understand what this reset idea would do for the game. How would it apply to anything plausible if we really were running space civs, and how would it contribute to game play?
I'm not dissing your idea; I just don't understand it.
It would help to get rid of the late game grind. A feeling that some players get when the game gets to redundant when they are winning.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
