I suspect work on GC4 will begin in the next year if not sooner... I know everyone has their wish list... but I just felt I should list out five broad changes that would make GC4 stand out from GC3 for me.
1) Change how the map functions. Frankly, the ol' completely flat and completely open map has gotten stale and I think it creates some technical issues. I think some very interesting hybrid map styles could be designed.
2) Differentiate between races and their functionality more. Have the abilities for races parsed out better and selectable. Having two ability points and then 50 abilities, many of which are extremely weak and some extremely strong has gotten a bit silly.
3) Diplomacy in most 4Xs is a extremely simple and largely risk-free mini-game. Make diplomacy a higher-stakes activity, with the potential for failure. An example could be... that if I ask for a trade deal and I have pretty outrageous terms, I have a low chance of success and TRYING and FAILING causes a penalty to relations for X turns. Succeeding could also be very lucky, and also come with a relations penalty for X turns because they feel cheated.
4) Combat needs a serious overhaul and serious attention this time.
5) Have mod support through Steam. GC3's modding has been a shadow of what it could have and should have been. I also highly recommend you allow people to import ship designs from GC3 to 4, and allow us to save designs as any hull type freely.
You are only dealing with about a dozen colonies. The other planets are, effectively, just resources.
If you consider what amounts to an area of hundreds of tiles to be a choke point then I guess so. By that definition, the entire continent of Europe was a choke point for allied invasion.
I'm not convinced that the map system Frogboy is proposing is bad because of "choke points"--as long as there is a way around them, which he has already mentioned.
In real geography and historic military fortification, choke points exist. The whole point of building in certain places was to create choke points that limited the positions from which an enemy could advance. As technology advanced, such choke points became increasingly irrelevant (e.g., castle walls and fortifications lost effectiveness as cannons and subsequent artillery came into use; coastal choke points became surmountable with submarine and air power; etc.).
My hope is that the development team gives careful consideration to how galactic geography will impact game play and how technology and tactics can overcome that geography.
I am in favor of a "small game feel" even if the game is big. I want every choice to be significant. I feel as though the changes to GCIII, arguably starting with citizens, have been steps in this direction. I hope GCIV works even more in that direction.
One concern I have, and maybe it's unfounded, is that the galaxy will lose some character/interest. In GCIII, I enjoy managing colonies, and each colony or system takes on a certain... personality. I often use this "personality" to name hypergates, and it helps me keep my bearings in the galactic map.
The way the map and colony management sounds now, I wonder what the focus will be on--fleet management and multi-turn space battles? Politics and intrigue?
I'm not saying this in a derogatory way--just pondering the ideas from Frogboy out loud. I'm trying to get a flavor for what kind of game GCIV might be with less colony management...
Code breaking is not my forte, so in laymans terms plz?
B5=Babylon 5 tv show. In the show small ships couldn't enter hyperspace on their own, so they had to travel using gates.
The large ships could enter hyperspace and exit hyperspace on their own.
well I'm always a fan of more planets. there is always a rare setting for those who like less planets.
The areas in gray have free movement. The purple lines are hypergates. Once you have the tech to use them any ship can use them.You can also research Jump Drives which let fleets select a cluster and create a temporary hyperlink to anywhere on the edge of a cluster which takes them there in N turns. However they can’t be intercepted in hyperspace.This adds another dimension to the map and eliminates dead hexes.
Can a fleet sit on a hypergate? If it can, then yes, they are a chokepoint, if not...
I imagine that multiple fleets could blockade a hypergate, which could get messy, especially if all other hypergates in the cluster lead to friendly territory.
The joker in the deck is the Jump Drive. Early in the game, we probably will have insufficient forces to make effective chokepoints out of the hypergate exit points (as long as fleets can't sit on them anyway, which I would definitely recommend). Hopefully, by the time that such fleets are available, the Jump Drive will be as well, making the entire point moot. Indeed if an enemy invests enough resources to make a chokepoint out of a hypergate, he may leave his planets wide open to a Jump Drive equipped opponent.
BTW, I noticed when you mentioned Jump Drives, that you said that they couldn't be intercepted in hyperspace. Can a fleet be intercepted in a hypergate?
Thanks Frogboy, that's exactly what I pictured. A layout similar to Sins of a Solar Empire, except with multiple star systems instead of just one system. This could be okay, however, I don't want to loose the feel of the game so as long as the individual smaller maps are large enough to keep that feel than maybe it will be okay. (Large enough that multiple factions/races could occupy the same small map.) That way one could have a small game as part of the larger game. If it's one faction/race per cluster then I agree with everyone on the choke point theory. There may be ways around this with the temp hypergates, but that would just allow for a brief surprise where then one can defend quickly.
As far as colony management, as long as it's possible at some point of the game then I'm good. The Frog stated that with higher technology one may be able to customize a planet similar to what they do now. Before that assign/train govenors. I just don't want to loose that micromanagement as an option as I love working your planet to a class 30 or higher. Either way it's going to drastically change the feel of colony management from Galciv II or III.
On the geography of the maps, some Nebula, Black Holes, Pulsars, Neutron Stars all these could be used to create inpassable objects in space (Certain radius), reducing on the amount of compute tiles.
Each hypergate is hundreds of tiles wide? You should have started with that tbh.
B5=Babylon 5 tv show. In the show small ships couldn't enter hyperspace on their own, so they had to travel using gates.The large ships could enter hyperspace and exit hyperspace on their own.
AH now I get it
That graphic is mostly what I imagined. Though I had thought it was possible all the individual systems abutted each other, without hyperlanes and adjacent tiles in each sector were visually adjacent and connected... but that transit BETWEEN those tiles and across the tile border was lengthy and abstracted off the map.
This would avoid most chokepointing at relatively small hypergates whilst allowing for the distinction between in-system and out-system travel values, while compressing the number of tiles to be computed.
I like this system you've diagrammed a lot though Frogboy, it's how I always wanted to do things, with the above idea I describe being a compromise for the people who are attached to GC's openness.
Yea, the Hypergates couldn't be blockaded. You can't prevent someone from getting into a new area (they'd simply appear on the first empty tile near the hypergate).
You could, of course, build up a huge fleet to cover the area but that's no different than in GalCiv III where i build a bunch of military starbases around key worlds and even then, it doesn't stop a ship with a jump drive from simply arriving anywhere they want on the edge of the cluster which is took big to effectively defend.
Some ideas might appear good on paper, but fall apart the moment they are put into practice.
This could negatively affect the exploitation aspect. Would there not be some way to improve non-governed colonies?
My main concern for the map changes is how would this work with spiral type maps? That was my favorite type when playing GC3.
While expected, a little saddening as campaigns were the primary source of lore. Will there be an alternate way of getting that in the sandbox?
I have a few ideas on improving shipyards. Like say they could be upgradeable like starbases.
You would have the choice to upgrade them to be able to build bigger ships or you could choose to have them pump out multiple smaller ships in the same turn. Some modules that would enhance the speed at which ships are repaired while docked at them would also be a welcome addition.
Exactly, I just play with stars scattered all over...
To me galactic civilizations is one of the best 4x or turn based strategy games I've seen. Since I've been playing multiplayer not a single complaint was we don't have phase lanes. This would solve the biggest reason I play scattered. It takes to long to settle tight clusters. I could see this for loose or tight cluster maps, but this is pointless for scattered.
One of the things to remember is when galactic civilization 3 came out. It worked in beta, but when the game came out the user interface sucked. We got a planet list on the main screen, but that was it. They were missing several, like most screens. This time around hopefully the game gets a pass to make sure the game has as much functionality as this game.
Theoretically, I like this. But in GC3, Milky Way is about as big as I can go. I hope GC4 doesn't dramatically increase memory requirements. A new machine is not an option.
Hypergates are choke points, but apparently Jump drives bypass them, at the cost of slower hyperspace movement. So at higher techs there are no choke points.
At least, that's how I'm reading Frogboy.
I wonder how that affects Trading ?
Options for shipyards is a cool idea especially specializing them to be fighter producers or upgrading them to increase capital ship production.
I like the idea of this map layout. However few more ideas:
Actually the impassable objects do create bigger problem for pathfinding than amount of tiles.
For citizens, I would love to see actually two types of them.
First, citizens as we know now, that you can either send on certain planet or keep in cabinet. No need to change this, except making it easier to make them travel way easier.
Second, give "small" citizens based on planet's population, those will be always tied to that planet and you will be able to tie them to some building = they give bonuses based on that. For every 5 small citizens, you get one big as a bonus(for cabinet or otherwise).
Depends greatly on the algorithm you use. I have one that uses a straight-line solution as a check to prevent wandering off and wasting cycles on a general solution. Of course, the larger the potential solution set, the more expensive the solution, so tile proliferation could be a problem. IME impassible objects aren't.
I like the idea of smaller ships being unable to have jump drives or move through the hyper lanes this makes larger ships necessary where now they just aren’t I never build anything beyond medium. I also like the idea of needing to supply ships.
Also can we please look at changing the ways carriers work. Needing to stock them with fighters is the only fix they need. I don’t use them any more after using one carrier to win the entire game.
Never really understood people's obsession with open space.It has no interesting strategic play at all just wack o mole with colonies.
I am on board with the way more planets/clusters idea. I would just call them galaxies. That is not to say that "smaller is better" is wrong, though. It's just the artistic direction this is taking. This sets up D-Day style invasions and would probably feel similar to Continents style maps in Civ. But this could take on a whole new Star Trek feel, where play styles in different galaxies are very different. One galaxy is tight-cluster, ample resources. Another is spread out, lots of life support, lots of precursor planets. Anomalies which simply don't exist in other galaxies. Technologies which just don't unlock unless you meet this minor race.
You'd have missions, just like Treasure Hunters and Salvage missions. But they're "Explore Andromeda" and "Explore Milky Way" missions. After some time, you get a weak survey ship in the other galaxy, on a semi-random tile. You explore around a little bit and set up a hyperlane. You can set up multiple hyperlanes. Then you set up starbases to defend/augment them. But the xenophobic Iconians don't like it and will blow you up ASAP if they catch you doing it.
The architect on Freeorion decided to go all hyperlanes because it made the AI easier. Everything becomes a directed acyclic graph. But they did not have the advantage of already having AI source code sitting around from previous projects, and they weren't mixing tiles with hyperlanes, like this is. DAG software libraries are really easy to find.
I'm not really on board with no campaign, unless resources simply don't permit. This cluster idea just screams CAMPAIGN. First scenario is one-cluster. Second scenario is two-cluster, with you starting in one and having to take care of the other. Third is multi-cluster, with several neutral parties standing between you and the evil dragon lords on the other side of the universe. You have to use diplomacy in order to travel across the universe on time before your ships all go out-of-date just getting there.
I was happy with Galciv3's campaign, and was even happier with the campaign's mod than Crusade's sandbox one. It was just short-lived.
Immersion. The nature of space is not a hop skip and jump the the next neighborhood. The distances involved are so profound that they should affect a simulation. If they don't, it's hard to believe you're in space.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
