Turn based tactical battles that may please most or all

Turn based tactical battles that may please most or all.



I think a good tactical battle would involve turn based 3D environment like the map environment in GCII. Logistics would still be in play, so that would help keep the number of ship down that could be in a battle. And like logistics you could research systematization, it would work similar to logistics but work within battles. So if ten ships enter a battle and you researched "echelon systematization II" then you would have 3 ships out of ten that can move and fire per turn, which could give advantages and disadvantages. With research you could be limited to 1 or 6 ships moving per battle turn or what ever your research level is at. One turn could consist of attacker and defender adjusting shields to front, sides, rear or what have you (like Star Fleet I - The War Begins! (I think it was that version)) . Then targeting ships and/or its components, and which square to move to and fire. Then pressing the next battle turn button for the next battle turn.






To elaborate on this a little more...



I'll be using the same 3 out of ten ships per turn example scenario for attacker and defender, of course this would change depending on research.



On entering a 3D environment battle mode the attacker would go on the attack first (this means "could" get the first shot depending on experience, and defender can only respond to the 3 ships that are attacking) and may have an advantage as described later. Now these 3 ships could be moved selecting pre designed formations or user controlled, or both (which ever works better). In pre designed formations a variety of formations would be available to select from, default would be (that is if you did not select anything for formations and moves) AI would choose best formation and squares to move to. Then adjusting shields or leaving it to the AI to adjust. Then you could choose ships and/or components to attack and/or attempt boarding a ship (if boarding is in GCIII), default again would be AI would choose best ships and/or components to attack or board. So on default you could be hitting next battle turn button until battle is resolved without getting involved, and you could intervene at the beginning of any battle turn if you felt it necessary, of course all this can be bypassed as described later. After selecting all your options or just hitting the next battle turn button, up to 3 ships from attacker and defender ( that is if both attacker and defender have the "echelon systematization II" researched) would go into action.



Depending on defenders experience they may have a response delay, so if a defenders ship had a response delay of 2 because of experience, that ship would have to wait 2 movement point before it could fire any weapons. On the next battle turn those ships that moved would have an icon signifying they can't move this battle turn, and up to 3 more ships can move and/ or fire weapons on this turn, this would carry on like this until battle is resolved. There could also be an option on the battle screen to skip to end of battle which you would just watch the battle play out similar to the way GCII does it now. Of course there would be an option in the options menu to skip the battle screen mode altogether. So the battle could play out in a part RTS (meaning you cant intervene in RTS part of the turn) and TBS. In this way I think it could please all or most of the different tastes that are out there that people have. It would have RTS and TBS, you could just control formations (maybe even player pre designed formations) or micro manage weapon firing, you can get involved in some of, or all of, or none of the battle turns. If you had 5 ships per battle turn to move you could control 2 ships and let the AI control the rest. So you decide how involved you want to get
28,983 views 53 replies
Reply #1 Top
I seriously doubt that your form of tactical battles will please all. Since there are a good few people that would only be happy with tactical battles set to zero.
Reply #2 Top
I don't want any form of tactical battles whatsoever. The entire idea is off-putting, and if included may put me off GC3. More diplomacy votes damnit!
Reply #3 Top
See
Reply #4 Top
Since there are a good few people that would only be happy with tactical battles set to zero.


And you could have it set to zero.

I don't want any form of tactical battles whatsoever. The entire idea is off-putting, and if included may put me off GC3.


I'm going by the poll if that is any indacation GCIII will have tactical battles.

I don't know why I could not get line breaks in my op.

Reply #6 Top
Hey, I'm with you all the way. Tak Kombat forever!

I'm just warning you to put on your flame proof underwear.
Reply #7 Top
I'm just warning you to put on your flame proof underwear.


Ya, I've seen what happens in most forums. But I think most people can read and see through the smoke. The way I approach it is first assume they misread or what have you, then go from there.
Reply #8 Top
Please for the love of god post in a readable paragraph format.

I think Gal Civ 3 is going to look a lot morel like total war:space. A game can't have nearly as much strategic focus if you have to play out every single battle.

So tactical is either going to have to play second fiddle to strategic, or dominate it...

or possibly be like Moo with it's extremly simple mechanics, move, shoot, move, shoot.
Reply #9 Top
The paragraphs aren't his fault. It's the forum. They were fine earlier.
Reply #10 Top
Please, if you DON'T want to be flamed, then read what has already been posted. Brad has given his views on TC, and it's irritating hearing the same old over and over again.

If it was real time, I could handle it. But turned based? Galactic Fantasy 3? no thanks.
Reply #11 Top
What precisely do you think you're playing at the moment other than a Turn Based game?
Reply #13 Top
Marcanthonas - stop being disagreeable! We both know you'd love to see a decent tak setup. Admittedly whats described above especially systematization(What?) is not very cool, but don't knoock the idea on principle.
Reply #14 Top
Sorry for OP I did not write it that way, I think I fixed it, had to put H Rule to get line returns. I tryed and tryed to edit it before but it just would not take line returns.
Reply #15 Top
It's not that I am opposed to tactical battles, it's just that you would need to re-write GC2 to add them. So to be realistic it ain't happening. I like the current vision of GC2, it's great fun.

If GC3 is designed from the ground up to include tactical battles then I would give it try and see how it works. But I remember reading comments from a dev that because the AI can NEVER fight tactically as good as a human, it ends up throwing the game balance off as they have to give the AI some way to win.
Reply #16 Top
A game can't have nearly as much strategic focus if you have to play out every single battle...or possibly be like Moo with it's extremly simple mechanics, move, shoot, move, shoot.


Maybe I misunderstood but sounds like a bit of a contradiction.

And I personally don't see a whole lot of difference between what I proposed and MOO. Yes, there is some difference but you have a chose to play out the battle or not. I don't think you carefully read what I wrote.

Reply #17 Top
Please, if you DON'T want to be flamed, then read what has already been posted. Brad has given his views on TC, and it's irritating hearing the same old over and over again.


Who were you referring to?

If you were referring to me I never suggest I did not want to be flamed, if not then forget it. Of course not say I would like to be, either.
Reply #18 Top
It's not that I am opposed to tactical battles, it's just that you would need to re-write GC2 to add them. So to be realistic it ain't happening. I like the current vision of GC2, it's great fun.


Are you suggesting that I was referring to GC2, adding tactical battles to GC2?
If so, I was not.
Reply #19 Top
Someone made the comment that adding tactical battles will turn GC into Rome:TW, as far as I'm concerned Rome:TW was gods gift to gaming. If GCIII came anywhere close to R:TW and retained the ability to easily mod I'd buy two copies just to support such an effort.

GCII I've given a shot because of the wonderful strategic content and I cut my teeth on MOO back in the day. Now I'm completely hooked as it is an enjoyable experience. With regards to the battles even in R:TW I skipped 70% of them in the late game. However, the thrill and epic feeling of the battles made the 30% made the game unique and memorable. To date I've purchased every game/expansion in the TW series and was active in the modding community. (if you build it, they will come.. sort of thing)

GC already has a blueprint for a successful strategic game now they need to just steal some ideas from another success such as R:TW and get the combat correct.
Reply #20 Top
With regards to the original topic, in my opinion i'm not sure if that would fly. There is a strong population that is against tactics of any level and the other such camp is in favor of something other than turn based combat.

Trying to do the above is kind of half-assing both aspects and rather than pleasing both camps I think most would end up even more pissed off. While obviously I'm in favor of an R:TW combat with GC strategy I'm not even sure if Stardock is capable of such a task it's taken the TW series years to do and it still has it's own unique flaws.

I like GCII and i gave them my money to support a solid game, will i stay with the series if it does not come up with a better tactical solution.. I dunno, right now i'm still having fun without.
Reply #21 Top
Once again I'm not saying tactical battles are going to be in GC2. What I am saying is If the poll is any indication that Tactical battles will be in GC3, then what type of tactical battles do you want in the game? I am suggesting a tactical battle that will appease everyone, or at lest attempt too, no more no less.
Reply #22 Top
I'd like VERY SIMPLE tactical battles in GalCiv 3. Anyone here play Sid Meier's Pirates (the new, Gamebryo version), and gotten into a land battle with a settlement, with your different units on one side, with the settlement units on another? I'd like GalCiv 3's battles to be like these, with your ships on one side and the enemy's on another, with things like space debris blocking the way.

Larger ships could take up more than one tile (a tiny hull taking perhaps 1/4 tile, small and medium ships taking up one tile, large ships taking up 2 square tiles, and a huge ship taking up 3 square tiles).

Moving would be like in FFT, you have one "move" action and one "act" action per ship. You use the move action to move around the battlefield, (the number of spaces you move is not dictated by the engines on your ships, because those are for long-range travel, while these battles are closer), and your act action lets you shoot beams/missles/drivers, repair (sped up by repair modules, perhaps?), or defend another ship (counterattack for an attacked ship).
Reply #23 Top
There is a strong population that is against tactics of any level and the other such camp is in favor of something other than turn based combat.


I have no idea what the percentage is. I do know that there are people that do want turn based battles, so I'm not sure if I can agree with you.

The other thing is in my suggestion is you don't have to play turn based battles, you can play it the way it is now in GC2. If the turn based battle turns out to be not that competitive then you can play it the way it is now in GC2... think of it as selecting a harder difficulty level. Anyways I don't find the way the battle system is now, all that difficult to beat the AI, all ya have to do is have better ships, all ya have to do is have a bunch of small ships with some lasers and a shield or two. So really what's the difference? Pleasing both camps.

R:TW battles are extremely annoying for me (in fact all RT Battle are) so I don't play the battles, but the rest of the game IMO is great. a difference of taste.

All I'm suggesting is a system that works for everyone or for most. I'm not suggesting my way or no way. It's just a suggestion that I feel IMO could work, and something I would like to play. I'm just putting out my opinion like everyone else does.
Reply #24 Top
Turn based tactical? YICHHHH! I'd rather have no combat at all.
Reply #25 Top
I'd like VERY SIMPLE tactical battles in GalCiv 3


And what I'm suggesting is you can have as simple or micro as you wish, it's up to the player.