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.
I chalk open space up to "think different". Instead of choke points, you have prohibitive distances.
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.
But the majoritity space sci fi shows dont.Most have space,monster anomalies and jumpgates,lanes.ect because it would be dull without them.
Galciv has human aliens with rubber masks.It is not a simulation.
The best part about star lanes and such, from an immersion and storytelling point of view, is that it makes the vast cosmos far more digestible and the smaller (due to technical constraints) galaxies we play with, far more believable.
Rather than me having to abstractly say... "well these 10 planets I own basically represent 50,000 planets" I can say "Space has billions of stars, but the form of transit being used only allows practical access to a very small portion of these stars. The map simply shows the available and reachable real-estate."
Also, you can use this idea, to justify a technology improvement in drives, revealing "new" star systems connected to the game map.
From a strategy-game perspective, open space can serve as a buffer between my territory and that of other factions. I'm not sure how the proposed map and travel system for GCIV will change the feel of proximity between factions--it may have little practical impact or it might make everything feel too tightly connected.
My hope is that there will be enough flexibility in galaxy setup options that those that want virtually no in-between space can have that, and those that want some emptiness can have a measure of it (obviously within the proposed clusters).
From a non-strategy-game perspective, I really like when content creators use empty space as an opportunity for character and world building. I think Star Trek Voyager has a fair bit of this, as well as the Battlestar Galactica reboot (never seen the original, so maybe that, too), and many other films, TV shows, and games in which important plot and character developments take place between geographic points of interest.
I'm not sure how such an approach could be brought into a 4x strategy game without making the game feel terribly slow, too tightly focused/overly micromanaged, or entirely different in terms of gameplay/genre.
I like this idea in principle--having new access to locations previously inaccessible because of better technology--but I don't know if I want to discover new stars because I'd wonder why my telescopes and whatnot couldn't see them before (unless the new map locations are in different galaxies or, for example, a globular cluster relatively nearby to the primary galaxy). To me, perhaps this is a way to represent how better drive technology interacts with life support to impact travel distances--better drives means you can go further, faster, with less life support/supplies, thus opening up new systems to explore.
What this brings up, to me, though, is how does exploration work in this new map system? Do you explore the local cluster (I'm assuming it is big enough to spend some time investigating), and then go to another nearby cluster via hypergate? The doodle Frogboy showed didn't seem to distinguish distances as a factor between clusters, but I'm assuming in actual implementation, you would be jumping to adjacent clusters only, thus requiring multiple jumps to get to a more distant cluster...
The biggest thing I want in IV is a bit more flavor to the tech tree. no technology is developed in isolation. Incandescent bulbs did not lead directly to Fluorescent did not lead to LED etc... There should be spurs or offshoots from weapons that lead to civilian items, or vice versa.There should be random discoveries that may or may not show up like the "crisis" events where a tech spur just happens to show up because some happy accident... IE Vulcanized Rubber or Penicillin...
I'd also like to see the ship designer parts have more... impact. there should be firing arcs. Anti ship vs anti-fighter weapons. ion cannons or stun weapons, mines, regenerating shields/point defenses... Shields and Point Defenses should work against all types of attacks. Armor should be a first tech researched and last line of defense once the other things have failed. I don't want turn base combat or anything like that... that would be tedious. But I do want the time spent in the ship designer and unique techs to actually play a roll in the combat experience.
Tasilios has some good points. >
^^ I agree. The current model of tech is a tree all 4x have it. It would be nice if you had a semi random (and blind) tech research. You have 4 or 5 areas similar to Stellaris but you just pick the area and commit research. What you discover is random within that pool/area.) Most folks love to plan out their tech path and this would block their choices and limiting choices is bad I guess. I'd also like to see the ship designer parts have more... impact. there should be firing arcs. Anti ship vs anti-fighter weapons. ion cannons or stun weapons, mines, regenerating shields/point defenses... Shields and Point Defenses should work against all types of attacks. Armor should be a first tech researched and last line of defense once the other things have failed.
^^If possible please keep some or most of the ship designer. I cannot begin to tell you how many hundreds of hours I spent just making a cool ship and lovingly watch it in the combat viewer. I know many our elite founders are awesome ship artists and this is a feature I very much adore and I am sure they do as well. I agree on more parts diversity would be nice but as long as we dont dive into where armor/shields are located at vrs incoming fire (like the Honor Harrington and others do for space combat).
I don't want turn base combat or anything like that... that would be tedious. But I do want the time spent in the ship designer and unique techs to actually play a roll in the combat experience.
^^^ Some want an Xcom type combat others just like the combat that Stellaris has (I actually like that but only if I can zoom up and see the fights a bit more closely) and some like the current combat viewer. Not sure what is best but you can be sure developer creep is here somewhere.
One very minor thing I'd like to see in IV is to have an option to see the AI combat like you could in GCII. While playing III I wish I could see what the other civs at war are doing. In case any of you don't know what I'm talking about, GCII had an option so that between your turns, while the AIs were moving, your view of the galaxy jumped around so that you could see the AI ships move and fight each other (not the combat viewer, just on the main map).
I would like the tech tree to scale better with map/# planets. For those that like the slow game. Sure you can mod it but it's just not the same. On large galaxies the best techs you can research in a turn. This means why build a huge fleet until you get to top of the tech tree. This also ends up making military starbases obsolite. Oh wow you get +10 laser bonus, My fleet is 2000 laser. Make military starbases more relavent late game, bigger bonuses for fleet inside range ect...
Bring back fear with the Dread Lords. They come, I send transport, yes, new class 16 world. There is no fear like there was in GalCiv2. If you didn't take out the Dread Lords right away in GalCiv2, they became a big problem. In GalCiv3, they could be in the galaxy for 200 turns and they only have 3 worlds.
Redesign multiplayer - I love this option, it's just the game is too big for this version of multiplayer. I see some type of combination between the metaverse from GalCiv2 and the multiplayer for GalCiv3. If you play multiplayer, you pick a sector on the metaverse map. That is now your home territory. Then you may attack another territory. The game will look at a players normal strategy. When you play a game, single player or multiplayer it keeps track of your statistical moves, such as you research tech A first 95% of the time, you build factory first 90% of the time. You rush colony ships 85% of the time, this is your first ship built. Then in the multiplayer game even though you're playing against the AI, the AI will simulate using those stats how that player plays the game. If you win that battle, (note it will only be small or medium size maps for shorter games) you win an extra territory. If you lose, you lose nothing as you were the attacker. Someone else battles you, you lose, you loose a sector, you win, you gain nothing. (All games the AI just plays as your statistical moves, no bonus for the AI.) Note you can not lose your home sector, if someone attacks and you only have one sector they will gain one, however, those players would then be under protection from a new battle until they play again. This would prevent someone from just playing a nobody and winning quickly gaining lots of sectors. Also players won't be able to battle players drastically different in size to help minimize this point.
^^^ ThisPretty much all the research should scale with the map size/number of inhabitable planets. The major events should be major some are... some are just.. eh. they should make each game more interesting when they happen.
Again I am right there with you. Scale both movement and tech with map sizes. I REALLY love insane, Epic games with a genius ai. I heavily mod my start to include terrible perks but hey, its fun!
Oh and sensor boats. I modded those back in. I think if you techup a certain tech than sure why not? Back in the day when we cramped huge vessels with a plain hyperdrive and 55 sensors and could see half the map! > Joy!
This should be a use for Military starbases... super powerful sensors too big to be put on a ship or could be a race perk for some of the races...I currently just build a bunch of smaller sensor boats and make basic picket lines... but a unique trait or a use for the military starbases would be cool. The Stargates basically replaced the main use I had for military bases... IE faster travel...
I find it hard to justify building military starbases in general, even back when they didn't cost admin points. My fleets already outpower my foes, so a military starbase might only see use a few times before I take the planets and move on. Maybe if military and economic could be used together on the same starbase, I might be more inclined to use them. Alternatively, if it were easy to packup a military starbase and deploy it elsewhere, that too might get me more interested in using them.
Another thing with military starbases, give them 3x the distance of other starbases. Maybe even add an additional benefit where if an enemy fleet enters the range they automatically loose hit points maybe 1% at extreme distance, 10% if they get close to the starbase. Make them more usable in the game. Right now the galaxy is too expansive for the little bit of space that a military starbase covers.
yeah back when the Military bases made for faster travel, I would make a string of them on really big maps so that I could get around faster. The jumpgates do the same thing with FAR less cost.Starbases in general should cost more to build and upgrade... perhaps an admin point for the initial build but then have something like the supply ships bringing raw materials to upgrade them. I actually liked that to some degree back in early Civ III where you needed a new constructor to add new stuff... But to balance that additional cost, they should be massively more difficult to destroy.I'd also love to see an additional type or at least module type "Habitation" which can be build in or around dead planets to get resources or research/food/ etc. (and yes this adds a lot of micro management but I like that so... yeah)
So the other thread with the Torian play through had me realize that the UP could also be vastly improved.It should have negotiations and be player controlled not every x rounds. IE, the player should be able to propose 1 bill or request one bill based on diplomatic prestige If Player is not the head Cannot propose bills, but can request them and negotiate with others to get the Head to vote on said bill.any Bill that is going to a vote should have 5 turns to allow player to barter/negotiate with other races before the bill is passed.either way this should be more interactive... there should be more choices of bills actions... the random arbitrary selections are often times game limiting and really annoying rather than enjoyable side aspect of empire building.
I like those ideas, Taslios.
It sounds like what you're proposing is that your percentage of power in the UP and/or diplomatic standing within the galaxy determines your ability to propose bills, force or request meeting etc.
So: If your race has 60% power in the UP/good standing with 8 of 12 races, you can put forward a bill where your race gets FULL CONTROL of all Resources, Artefacts and Precursor Relics within your ZOC, whether unowned or owned - are you proposing that kind of thing?
Obviously, that impacts on your diplomatic relationships with the other 40% - or those races that don't vote for your bill - but that's what diplomacy's all about: Getting the 10% powered Terran to vote Yes because you've just promised them (in sideroom deals at UP) 1000bc at 50bc for 20 turns etc. Of course, because the deal was made with the help of the UP, you cannot back out of that deal and not suffer serious consequences from the UP itself.
So I'm proposing two types of Deals: One where you do the normal Trade Deal with, say, the Drengin. You Trade money, techs, resources and ships and once the deal's agreed to, it happens immediately and you can't go back and say "I change my mind." The second occurs when UP is in session. Deals occur over several turns for whatever resource/bc has been areed upon between the two races. Because the deal spans several turns, it can be cancelled. But it'll make the UP very unhappy and while the UP itself can't declare war on you - in the same way the UN officials etc can't declare war on anybody (who're they going to send? Other officials armed with sharp pens?) - they will tell the Korath and everyone else what you've done and they will declare war on you.
Imagine suddenly getting a heap of Incoming Messages from other races: "Our contacts in the UP have told us what you have done. This is War!" or something similar. At the very least, even if there's no war, you lose a heap load of voting power and diplomatic standing.
That example is a biiiit more powerful then what I was thinking. I was thinking more the frequency of the requests would be tied to your diplomatic rank. and if you were the Head of the UP you would have a much larger pick list of proposals you can chose from... but the proposals would be hard coded things like... "Sanctuary Worlds: Any class 16 or above world shall be declared a native sanctuary and is no longer available for colonization" or "Tax the heck out of the war mongers" type proposals. just... give me 20 or so options that I can chose, not the random list of 5 from GCIII
I'm pointing Derek over to this thread as he's the one in charge of the new GalCiv work.
Personally, I'm all about pacing and communicating complex ideas to the player. The better we get at communicating complicated things, the more complicated we can make the game. And I mean complicated in the good sense in terms of having a lot more depth to the experience.
Op 2. Differentiate between their races and functionality more.
this is what I think two did better than three. They were more different. Matter of fact civilization two seems to have done that better than most games. Is in ability differences. I’m not saying the choices couldn’t have been more meaningful at least their were several a race could have, and you would then choose more if you were default.
Quoting reply 49 Brads
1. fewer but more distinctive. I don’t like the idea of fewer it’s makes factions feel less distinctive.
So just a few things off the top of my head.
4. Sounds like endless space or sins of a solar empire. Picking up one of their major drawbacks. I vote against this idea. Here are three things games hurt themselves by having. a. Phase lanes. Inhibits gameplay. b. Requiring open borders treaty to enter. Can kill colony rush. C. Large empire penalty. Placing an artificial limit on expansion. Check out my comparison of tall vs. wide in the real world. It doesn’t work. cc. What I didn’t have a problem with was the economic wall in two.
If there is an option to do it yourself or to auto-resolve, I agree--auto-resolve will likely produce sub-par results. To me, I think turn-based or real-time control over individual fleets in battle would fundamentally change the game, but not in a good way. I would like some broad-brush tactical control over fleet battle objectives (e.g., disable and capture rather than destroy, hit and run, etc.), but nothing so focused as individual tactical control."I think it'll make any game a real chore to play" - exactly."limit map sizes to prevent too many battles" - and risk a riot...I'm a yes to options and new combat mechanics, but a no to forced fleet micromanagement. And an auto-resolve option is, to me, forced fleet micromanagement.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
