I love the fact you can't control the combat on the micro level. It makes every decision in ship design so much more important. A well designed craft is so much more important now.

Really, what could tactical combat add? It wouldn't make the game more fun, it would make it really really poor. An AI really can't compare with a human on the microcombat level like that. Just play Rome: Total War for proof. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy R:TW, but the AI has to COMPLETELY outnumber you and overpower you for any hope of winning, and even then it isn't certain. Stuff like researching more powerful war-tech won't be as important because people will just micromanage it to death.

I vote for tactical even I know it will not happen

It wouldn't make the game more fun, it would make it really really poor. An AI really can't compare with a human on the microcombat level like that. Just play Rome: Total War for proof. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy R:TW,

Thats a pretty little contradiction you got there sjlunchbox. If you ignore rome total war and go back a few more years to shogun:TW: That was a vey well done tactical simulator, If it was even on both sides then I would probably win, but if I was outnumbered by even, lets say a third, I lost that battle unless by some miracle I was able to pull off one of my hairbrained schemes. Having an efficient tactical ai is not impossible. And I really enjoyed shogun total war even though the turn based side of the game was very shallow, it was all about the combat.

I am very surprised by your responses, Frogboy ... even knowing that the person had irritated you.

Nobody is infallible. He is as human as the rest of us, but I too was a little bit surprised at the response to Tak even though the recipient to that particular post did not care one way or the other what happens to the developement of GC2. Sh1t happens.

The tactical combat crowd will have plenty of options this year. There's Space Empires V, there's Sword of the Stars. Go play those games for tactical combat.

We're not just the tactical combat crowd Mr Wardell, we're the GC2 tactical combat crowd and it isn't even a subtle difference. The main reason for wanting it to be included is because GC2 has captured our imagination and we beleive that Tak would take the game further. Sure, concentrate on diplomacy, races, campaigns, espionage and general improvements, these take the the game forward step by step. But if you want to make a leap: Taks the way to go.
BTW I probably will be playing the games mentioned, but thats because I'm a player of games and I like most good strategy games, but i'm sure i'll put them aside to make way for the expansion.

Maybe Im just too stupid or stuborn.... but what exactly makes a good tactical game? It seems like anyone thinks we cant hae both (good general strategy + good tactical combat). I wonder why.

Yeah, beats the hell out of me too

In my own defense, bear in mind that I was responding to someone who said the AI is "broken" and that their "12 year old nephew" could "pown" it.  Since I wrote the AI, I tend to take such comments personally. What can I say, I'm human.

I'll say what I've said before: There won't be tactical combat in GalCiv II because the AI work necessary to make it decent would be more than what we could afford to do in an update or even an expansion pack.  A sequel to GalCiv might have tactical combat.

@ Lucien Gyiira - Been interesting debating the finer and not too fine points with you, what was the game you were talking about? beleivers? rings a bell but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Excellent turn based game, there -- no tactical combat, either.

WHen you go on it, speak about master of orion, pax imperia, maybe ascendancy, to some degree homeworld, well and of course imperium galactica. (Btw why is everyone ignoring me?)

Not ignoring you at all, were on the same page after all , literally and otherwise. Never played imperium galactica, but i'm getting the impression that its a good crack. I'll put it on my aquisition list. Really though, comparisons can be made with Rome TW because it falls under the umbrella of Strategy games and because it has a tactical combat element.

In my own defense, bear in mind that I was responding to someone who said the AI is "broken" and that their "12 year old nephew" could "pown" it. Since I wrote the AI, I tend to take such comments personally. What can I say, I'm human.

Yeah, I would have ripped into him aswell in your shoes, probably a little less politely too.

I'll say what I've said before: There won't be tactical combat in GalCiv II because the AI work necessary to make it decent would be more than what we could afford to do in an update or even an expansion pack. A sequel to GalCiv might have tactical combat.

This brings to mind my uni days and asking for funding from my father - "No money, no fun, your son" to which my dad replied "how sad, too bad, your dad." The thing is its your decision and that is the bottom line. Its not a decision I like, but you've made your reasons clear so i'm gonna repect it. So..about GC3 - How are you feling about tactical combat being a definite possibility and something that you would actively work towards? Every sequel has to have something that essentially sets itself apart from previous iterations, could tak be one of those differences?

Not at all, R:TW and GalcivII are entirely different games. I enjoy R:TW because of the cinematic appeal of it all, the AI is enough to make me feel like a big man when I rip it apart, but nothing special.

It was the wording more than anything else that led me to that particular statement The thing is, while you do have a point when considering the dragging out of turns, your thinking only in terms of time taken. What we "takkers", for want of a better word, are proposing is an enhancement of the combat element designed to make that time period vastly more enjoyable by offering diverse combat choices. It looks like we wont get it, but that does not mean we're going to stop discussing it.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Excellent turn based game, there -- no tactical combat, either.

Ha! I knew that name rang a bell, I too found them to be annoying in the extreme- That miriam was a pinch faced hussey! And that was one game that did not need tak. There was such a wide variety of build choices. But one of my favourite aspects of the game was the citizen management and how they developed, I know its a small thing but it was really well done. The cut-scene storyline was interesting too, but the background colours were simply awfull. Sorry, went a bit off topic there

It saddens me to read that there will not be any option for tactical combat in Galciv2. The No Tak Kombat Klub wins.

No! Everybody loses, its that simple.

To all those who fought the good fight in support of the option of tactical combat in Galciv2, I salute you. To the No Tak Kombat Klub.....pbbbttt!!!

Hehehe - who needs words eh?

tactical combat in an expansion would be interesting but man that woudl be a lot of work. They would really need to change the way ships are designed. Tactdical combat right now would be so boring.

I'd be happy if they just FIXED the combat viewer.

A lot of people seem to have some really interesting ideas about tactical combat, so i thought I'd throw my own brainstorm into the mix.

The most difficult part of implementing it will be the AI, in my opinion. The actual features and details of the combat itself are second to getting the AI to work with them. Here's where my idea comes in. I have been an avid fan of Battlefront's Combat Mission series of games. While they are definately not comparable games in many aspects, there are useful lessons that can be learned there; as they have excellent tac ai, imo. They have the AI thinking on two different levels, strategic and tactical. The strat ai does all the thinking until it comes time to resolve a tactical battle. Instead of a dice roll, the tac ai takes over and begins thinking about LOS, firepower, movement, armor, enemy OOB and TO&E, etc. Once the battle is resolved, the strat ai takes the result and continues on its path.

In a game based in space, thinking in 3 dimensions must be achieved. A 2D plane of movement will not be sufficient.

Weapons will probably have to be revisited. Ballistic weapons such as guns and missiles have definite advantages in range over energy and light based weapons (scatter, diffusion, etc.), while being limited by magazine space and speed. Energy weapons by and large are lightspeed weapons, so they give the enemy little to no time to react and deliver near instant firepower. Missiles in their powered flight envelope are able to maneuver to the target and evade countermeasures if so equipped. Missiles can also be used in ballistic strikes against stationary targets (relative) such as starbases or planetary objects. The attacker would simply stay outside the powered flight envelope of any missiles and launch theirs toward the stationary target. The missiles would accelerate until they consumed their fuel, then coast to target. Detecting such an object would not be particularly easy, especially at the velocities they would be approaching. Actually engaging a lone starbase (e.g. no warships defending it) in battle should be a rather rare occurence. As a defender, drawing the attacker into a starbase's defenses would be a tactical challenge for a picket force to overcome. Much like trying to draw a naval force into the range of shore batteries or a recon force trying to draw enemy tanks into range of anti-tank weapons.

Speed will have to factor in more decisively, as markedly faster ships will be able to dictate the terms of an engagement. Right now a CL(tiny) has no choice but to offer battle to a DN (large). In my opinion, a massive vessel like a DN could never accelerate to intercept a CL that didn't want to fight. That leads right back to the tactical challenges I mentioned earlier. Right now I can build fleets of DN's and nothing else while the enemy flounders around with tiny and small hulls. With tactical combat, my big massive fleets would be chasing ghosts...ghosts who would be free to pick at whatever targets of opprotunity come their way.

Ok, enough rambling for now. I need to get my fix...err play galciv2, that is

Hey frogboy, thanks for putting up the vote. However, while taccombat seems to win, this is *not* as clear an issue as it seems: Because basically the taccombat-crowd is probably splitted into fractions, at the very least along the real-time vs. turn-based discussion. Also, advanced diplomacy is probably a lot easier design- and implementation-wise than taccombat. So I am really curious on what you will make out of the results of the poll.

I'd probably fancy a significantly changed gameplay in GalcivIII, not tile-based like now (well, somehow... for example like in imperium galactica 2) and more fluent (but I'd still like turn-based) in order to accomodate for an immersive taccombat. I could actually imagine that one ship is chased by a fleet of ships throughout several turns...

Hey frogboy, thanks for putting up the vote. However, while taccombat seems to win, this is *not* as clear an issue as it seems: Because basically the taccombat-crowd is probably splitted into fractions, at the very least along the real-time vs. turn-based discussion

Very true.
I would prefer a turned base TC. Realtime just doesn't fit, I mean this is a strategy game, you should have time to think about your next steps. TC running real time would be more an action game, where you must react and act as fast as possible to get all your commands through.
On the other hand turn based TC has the big disadvatage that the one who makes the first move usually has a big advatage. Maybe it would be possible to make a simultanious turned based TC. Kinda like:

Player A enters all commands for his ships and hits the end button. (commands are not executed yet)

player B enters all commands for his ships and hits the end button. (All players involved have hit the end button and so all commands of both parties are being executed simultanious)

I personally couldn't care less if either turn based or simutaneous or real time tak combat was implemented, it would still improve the game. a chess style one piece at a time would enable us to play really tactically - it would take an age. so a simple your turn my turn system would be more appropriate. But the real time mode would be a real adrenaline buzz. the simultaneous idea would be a real nailbiter. All the ideas have their own merit and should not be dismissed by anyone especially by us 'combat lovers'

I'm sorry, us takkers are not really split into factions as such: we just want the same thing really. Stop trying to drive a wedge between us