> Implementing tactical combat into a GC game would be the absolute best way to make sure I won't buy it.

So I take it, you'd vote for point 5.

And that's back to the topic of this thread: I would like to have just a poll about this. I simply would like to know, how many people think like you. But remember, that tactical combat would remain an option, so you'd not have to fight it out (unlike in Total War: Rome, where the numbers game was terribly unbalanced)

@Peace Phoenix: It appears to me, that there is a great deal of anxiety regarding the AI here. But for me this is just an opportunity for innovation: Open up a good interface for AI modules of any major programming language and soon people like me will send in AIs better than any investment on the side of the developer could have possibly produced. It's amazing how far people get even without any interface, just with some parameter tweaking in other games (paradox games come to mind, Space Empires as well)

And believe me, if I get a decent interface for Java, you'll soon get an AI where you'd think twice before going to battle with - even with an evenly-matched force.

I'd really love tactical combat in galciv II. C'mon! who wouldn't like it to fight battles as the commander of a fleet??

Implementing tactical combat into a GC game would be the absolute best way to make sure I won't buy it. Galactic Civilizations is a STRATEGY game, not a TACTICAL game -- you are not Captain Picard, you're Admiral *insert name here*.

For Heavens sake! I just can't understand why some people always argue with this realisme thing. Why is strategy and tactics so incompatible?? If a specific feature is 10 times more fun but a little less realistic, than so what! Give me the fun! I think 99% of all video games are unrealistic.
A little action in form of tactical combat would certainly add some diversity to the game, it would offer some change and "adrenaline" during the game,unlike only looking at numbers from a to z.

Another argument that clearly speaks for tactical combat is the 3 dimsional enviroment the in which the game takes place. Why have a starship builder and invest lots of time to construct ships if ther is hardy any occasion to admire your designs?? The way its now I don't even care for the ship designs that much. I play the game with the camera zoomed out to the max and when a battle ouurs I just hit the finish button. And I think this is the way most people play it.

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

Now I never played Moo3 due to the bad critics, but I played Moo2 probably more than I spent time in school. And I can't agree on this one. The ai was pretty waek in tactical combat in my oppinion.
Basicly I think the ai will never be as good as an human player in tactical combat. But is that a reason to abandon that idea all together?? In moo2 I simply played on a difficult game mode, I was better at tactical combat and the ai had higher bebefits in economy and production etc. This way the chances were evened out again, and I had some action in between all the pondering and calculating

And the API thing - it's basically calling a large array of functions burried deep in the game-code. Offering them to a module is what I (and everyone else) call an interface. And no, this doesn't imply that the AI needs to be 'scripted'. I meant fully programmed AIs.

Ok, I have badly expressed my point of view. Take a look in some changelogs, you will see that new APIs were implemented to allow a better AI.

And I have never told that the AI must be scripted. But if the classes aren't designed to handle user-made AI modules ....
More if an AI behavior is strange with a user made module, it would pretty difficult to spot the root of the problem.

Oops, sorry about all the green!

Yeah a poll could be done, but I feel that tactical combat is already on the table as a serious contender for one of the expansions. I think the problem lies in whether or not they can make a really good one that will blow Moo2 out the water.

Shucks, why not - I vote for a poll! Is that allowed?

Yo! Hijack crew, where are you? What do you reckon - Is it Litmus test time for Tactical combat?

Id be happy if they just improved the combat VISUALS.

SD: what's with the "bobbing up and down" of te ships and the "undulating"? I can't imaging why they put this behavior in!

The visuals of the current combation resolution screen is meant to be more symbolic and was programmed by a freshmen. For that, they are incredibly good. In fact, they are so good, that the more I began to want a tactical combat, not just a show.

And about exploiting - well, if someone is technologically advanced, then it's only ok, if he has more options at hand to exploit. Of course, certain techs made it way too easy, but that's basically just a balancing issue.

Yeah whats a bunker noob and whats a prolly? is that like some sort of umbrella? please explain moo2niac as I really would like to know.

You are all talking about MoO games and HOMM, why noone speaks about Ascendancy, PaxImperiaII, ImperiumGalactica 1+2? Personaly, I would say Homeworld like fights would be too action oriented. But all the others? I loved the Imperium Galatctica combat system the most.

Someone said we are not Captain Picard, true, we do not command one ship, but a whole empire, dozens of fleets. Why not give some general orders at the beginning of the battle and see it "real fight" out. Right now its all about numbers. The GalCiv2 combat system is the most disappointing about the game. All ships fire on one, when its destroyed the next, then the next and so on until all are destroyed. Thats so odd, dull and stupid.

Some sort of tactical combat should and have to be there. As it is now, after 3 ingame years of play, the game becomes boring, there is nothing to do. The empire is large and runs at its own, there is not much to "handle" except for combat, but that one runs at its own too and to watch the fights, is boring anyway. Now and then I make a decision about a random RARE event, now and then I have to choose the next tech to research. After hundreds of hours in the shipyard, I do not bother to create new ships and just upgrade existing ones. Now and then I move one ship there and one fleet somewhere else. I fortify my borders and when some stupid civ is idiotic enough to declare war, I overrun it.

I would love tactical combat, as it would be something to do. I do no see the point of Stardock, there are way not enough fights as they state, at least not in my games. On the other hand, they could limit it. Why are my borders protected by about 200 fleets? Each one consist of just 3 ships. WOW. Why not make it ImperiumGalatica like, one capital ship, 2 battleships, few cruisers, few destroyers and some dozens fighters, and limit the fleet number like it was in Ascendancy, or Pax Imperia. No longer dozen of fights per round (though, I never had so many).

Stardock and you speak about AI disadvantage, what one? When you cheat and take the easy way out, its your fault, not of the game. I cant remember ever beating a 3x as large army as mine in HOOM, not in IG, not in Homeworld, never ever. Just go sure the AI is upgrading its ships properly.

GC is quite disappointing and boring. After the initial colony rush, there is absolutely nothing to do. Commanding few ships to its new destination and thats for it.

C'mon! who wouldn't like it to fight battles as the commander of a fleet??

I would, since I'm not the commander of a fleet -- I'm the Emperor, the President, the Supreme Admiral.

For Heavens sake! I just can't understand why some people always argue with this realisme thing.

It has nothing to do with realism, and EVERYTHING to do with fun.

Why is strategy and tactics so incompatible??

They aren't -- they mesh together quite well, actually. But GalCiv2 is a game of STRATEGY, not of TACTICS. Do you understand the difference between being Commander of Fleet Y and being the Supreme Admiral of the Armada or the President of the Federation?

If a specific feature is 10 times more fun but a little less realistic, than so what! Give me the fun! I think 99% of all video games are unrealistic. A little action in form of tactical combat would certainly add some diversity to the game, it would offer some change and "adrenaline" during the game,unlike only looking at numbers from a to z.

Sure, it'd be FUN -- for you warmongers. But it would totally wreck the game -- warfare would become the easiest way to win due to an exploitable tactical AI. I for one do not win primarily through warfare, and seeing warfare become the dominant winning method by an even higher percentage is something I will oppose with everything I have, but most importantly my wallet.

Another argument that clearly speaks for tactical combat is the 3 dimsional enviroment the in which the game takes place.

What do three dimensions have to do with the tactical combat? That'd make it even HARDER to implement [three dimensions, rather than two] and make a good AI for. That's hardly an argument that clearly speaks for it, since GalCiv2 is a single-player game.

Why have a starship builder and invest lots of time to construct ships if ther is hardy any occasion to admire your designs??

It's pretty darn obvious you aren't the consumer whom the ship builder was even aimed at. See, not everyone thinks it's fun playing fully zoomed out. If that's how you play, why would you even bother with the jewelry? Just pick a hull and put equipment on it, choosing that equipment for functionality and not appearance. It serves a great purpose even without the jewelry.

Basicly I think the ai will never be as good as an human player in tactical combat. But is that a reason to abandon that idea all together??

In a single-player strategy game? YES.

NO, i dont need another RTW style game with combats that can easily be beaten almost no matter what you use. Its fine the way it is now.

Hmm, how about something completely new:

Making a second game which is closely linked to Galciv 2 in the following way:

The new game would be a homeworld-style mix with privateer, where you are a mercenary with a few ships and are hired to help out in this or that battle. In the background a galciv2 engine actually slowly plays out against itself and the various civilizations hire you to aid them in their efforts. But you can become so mighty by building up a sufficiently large fleet (if you are successfull), that you could take on an entire civilization. Once you beat it, you can take them over (the Drengins, for example) and suddenly the game would change the perspective and you'd be playing plain galciv2 from that point on.

And then, if you get crushed, the game would switch back to you and your flagship how you try to get away from the invading forces. If you manage to get away, you can start again, slowly building up your fleet, and so on...

Actually, this second game would best be something like Space Empires: Starfury or that russian Star Wolves. In those games I always miss the background-strategy that should be going on.