Unlikely but never say never I guess. There have been numerous long threads on this subject and it is pretty much DOA. The most that you might hope for in the future are some simple tactical attack options similar to what you get on the invasion screen.

The difference between MP and tactical combat is that for the former unlike the latter, Stardock doesn't seem to be philisophically opposed to having it, the reason they left it out was due to priority reasons hence the poll on a MP expansion.

I also suspect if a poll was made about expansion adding tactical combat, it would fare way better than MP.


Tactical combat ala Moo and Master of magic would be a lot of fun, but the AI would be even more disadvantaged. The problem caused by the fact that humans can always 'first strike' combat will be nothing compared to the crazyness of full on Moo style tactical combat.

It's not cheese per se, just a recognition that the AI can never match humans there.

The problem for the AI would be like Heroes of might and magic x10 worse, because at least in Heroes, the unit stats are fixed and you can't build your own custom units and even then the AI in heroes is not close to top notch even though in some respects it's pretty close to chess.

Now imagine a chess game where the pieces themselves don't have fixed abilities. A nightmare!

Personally I don't mind, because I play games for fun, even in a stripped down game with rules that the AI can cope with, it still can't match me without cheating, so worrying that tactical combat will make it worse is not a big deal.

I fear you may be disspointed. The only quote I was able to find on the topic was "watch the battles play out in glorious real time 3d". It sounds like what GalCiv2 was advertising.

Of course if it turns out otherwise I may have to add it to my wishlist. After Suporeme Commander and a system to run it, of course.

A real-time tactical combat system done right would be a game in its own right. Games such as Homeworld or Warcraft are all about that. Besides, I'm not sure adding this kind of add-on would suit the game. The moment you play games on larger maps, a single turn could suddenly start taking so much time you're disoriented or just plain bored.

Adding certain tactical options is a more plausible extra but I'm not sure it would add that much to the game. StarTrek: Birth of the Federation uses this in a turn-based tactical combat and it boils down to a game of rock-paper-scissor, a gamble. The reason it works in the invasion-aspect of the game is because you know what the effects are and the other side doesn't get to pull the rug from under you by merely a lucky gamble.

As others stated before, adding depth to combat also introduces obstacles to the AI. I would applaud efforts to add more aspects to combat, but I'd rather have a simple (simplistic) version that's fair to the AI than an involved one that allows you to plow through the AI without any significant resistance.

Perhaps adding special abilities would help adding depth to combat? The most similar 4X game I know to GalCiv is Alpha Centauri. You can choose weapons and defences in a slightly dumbed down way but what adds a lot to the game are the abilities. Abilities are tied in to weapons and hulls as well and encourage you to tailor units to very specific situations or opponents. Sadly, I have few ideas as to what kind of abilities you could introduce in this game (terrain is not really an issue here). Adding abilities would require an extensive overhaul of the combat system.

Agreed. Even if a full blown tactical combat is impossible due to programming difficulty and AI problems, choosing your targets and perhaps the option to retreat would be nice additions.

And by the way, the AI isn't so much in a disadvantage if you do not allow to save within a battle. In fact, for larger battles, the AI is in a clear advantage, even for professional players. And then, just like in Total War, you can still choose to not play out most of the minor battles. Instead use just what we have now, some automated resolve.

Oh, and one more comment on Space Empires V: If you have a look at the released screenshots, then you will see all kinds of controls necessary to control various participating ships in the battle screens. Why would they have it, if there's no way to control the ships? That, and the fact that Space Empires has always also been about playing out the battles leaves no doubt, that you will have a battle engine much like homeworld, but more detailed (at least because you have handrafted each and every of your ships)

For the implementation of tactical battles in Galciv, I think the most clever way to do that would be to licence/buy (homeworld?, I-War?, freelancer?) or take a working engine (VegaStrike?), instead of developing one from scratch.

Or take an own one. That 2D-shooter-style multiplayer space game which stardock has - would be nice enough.

Unfortunately, tactical combat may never make it ito GC2. I've championed the cause once myself, but its the whole exploitation potential that keeps this from becoming a reality.

The only real argument that people have against is that it will make the game too easy. You can happily ignore the people who say it will be too hard to code.

Personally, I beleive it will add more diversity to the game:

The tech list will need to be expanded - ranged weapons, troop killing guns etc

A wider variety of ships will be available - Long range fighters anyone?

Planetary defences will become more important. - defence sats, planetside launchers, batteries etc

Boarding ships - for this alone bring it back much fun was had with this.

Carriers and one man fighters - If star wars, Battlestar galactica and pretty much every single space opera can have it, why can't we?

But this is much repeated fare, but I'm glad you brought this up huhoh - BTW i'd vote 2, twice if i'd get the chance.

Marcanthonas - Both of us know you'd love to see Tactical Combat if it was good enough. Don't be diagreeable

Also, this is not difficult to teach the global strategy AI, to dynamically adjust it's approximations whether it will win a battle or not: Once it has lost several three-to-one battles, it will simply try to make sure a four-to-one battle next time.

This is NOT a neural net. It doesn't learn the way you think. It adapts to a strategy based on criteria, but will not remember things like tactical combat. Anyway, do you code AI?

Its a bloody swap off isn't it?

One game has a good strategic framework, but a shallow tactical element - GC2, and SE5 is the opposite. This brings to mind the new coke advert:

Lime in one hand, coke in the other - "Put the lime in the coke...."

That said i should be playing SE4 as its out in a coulpe of weeks here in Blighty [England]. And SE5 as soon as its out.

Cool - thanks for he heads up on SEIV.

just do what i do - keep em talking, whenever the opportunity arises make a statement (and get flamed).

The thing is Tactical combat is one element Frogboy would love to do if they could get a decent level of difficulty - I'm hoping they're still trying.

The reason for the lack of interest has probably got to do with fact that the topic is a well trodden field and there seems to be nothing new growing here.

Later init.

In fact, I'd also buy a stand-alone game, where I could design my ships with the ship-editor from galciv2 and then fight it out in some tactical combat. But combined with a greater sense of purpose by actually do it inside of galciv, would be the nicest option, of course.

Those that say that Moo3 proved that this is impossible to do balanced miss the point that Moo2 proved the opposite.

About the challenge: that's indeed intricate and there's no simple answer to how to make tactical combat in space challenging. Simply pitting two forces against each other can only result in a pure numbers game as we have it now. I think, sword of the stars is attempting some things with respect to that. We'll see how it turns out.