Idea for ground combat in Gal Civ 3

from GalCiv2 Forums
Taken from the game Conquest of the New World.

In CNW you had a grid of 2 by 3 or 4 by 3 can't remember with two squares on the end for you and your opponents flag square.Armies consisted of infantry, cavalry and artillery.
There were generals which based on their level of experience would allow a certain number of action points to your units.There was a unit placement phase before the battle began.

You would move units up or to the side with combat happening when either cavalry or infantry was in an adjacent square.
The goal was to capture the flag.
There was bonus for flanking and in the case of cavalry charging.

This might put a little more strategy into ground combat without overcomplicating it.

Ground troops for infantry.
Mechanized armor instead of cavalry.
Could still have artillary.
Would fit into the possible hero system for leaders to infer bonuses to units

Ground tech could be derivative of space tech i.e. mass drivers, beam weapons and missiles.

4,822 views 10 replies
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I prefer the Sim Meier's Pirates (new release) version of ground combat. It is tactical... and resolves similar to our mode of space combat... or is it more like Moo2... the more I think about it... yea... some hybrid between our version and their version.. or even final fantasy 10 style... hmm.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Or even (going back farther) Star General, where you had planetary combat units able to be built on appropriate worlds and could transport them in order to conduct your invasions. You then actually fought for the worlds against the units the AI had. These units were able to be upgraded if you had researched the appropriate techs. They also gained combat experience bonuses as well. Being a classic type wargame, these units of course represented air, armor, field artillery, a couple types of infantry, and even militia units of various types. No naval units, but battleships in orbit could periodicly provide bombardment support (for a price). [Yes, there was a rudimentary economy setup in order to buy ships, ground units, and research.]

Transports were loaded to their capacities and then took off into space, where they were able to be attacked & destroyed if caught by hostile forces - pretty much like they can now.

One more thing - There were 2 different timescales. When you were in ground combat, you had (I think - it's been a while) 6 or 10 turns to conduct ground operations before you went back to conduct space ops, then went back to 6 or 10 turns of ground ops until the ground wars were resolved. If you had multiple ground wars going on simutaneously, I think think you bounced between them to keep the timelines straight.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I like the idea of a more complicated ground attack, however, I am not so sure it belongs in GalCiv2. At the moment the game is pretty time consuming, can you imagine playing a gigantic system with abundant everything? It would take you a year to complete a game.

If they could generate some type of strategy that was a bit more involved but less time consuming and actually contributed to the overall play style of the current game, I would be all for it. Otherwise, I feel they should leave it alone and make the space combat a bit more interactive.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top


This is why I mentioned the CNW style of combat.It does add a layer of strategy but not overkill.I bielive that most combat in CNW was solved in about 2 minutes or less.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
OOps don't know how to quote on this board.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Reply #5, I also feel this way.

But I would like something risk-ish or something. Anyone remember Warsong on Genesis? As it is the flashing numbers remind me of The Price is Right, or something.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I just started playing recently and really admire this company for its willingness to actively participate in the forums and act on that participation (such as in this patch). I've had nothing but good experiences thus far.

Introductions completed, I'd like to see the planetary combat system made a bit more in depth as well. It wouldn't necessarily require a tactical aspect; in fact I kind of like just having the responsibility of building up and letting my subordinate officers actually fight out the battles. My concerns with the current system are as follows:

-Massive, planetary conflicts involving billions of men and women are over in a week. I'd prefer a system where one side declares an invasion (choosing which method of assault or defense to authorize, as well as how many reinforcements to authorize over the course of the war), and the war is then fought out for a variable length of time (determined by the skill and technology of the soldiers, the ability of the generals, and the power of the ships in orbit.

-Every army looks the same except for colors. I'd suggest giving each race a unique look (that evolves with technology) and have several unitsets to choose from for custom races.

-No commanders: Wars (on air, land, sea, or space) are determined as much by skillful leadership as by equipment and training (see the civil war). The ability to manage military schools and watch the progression of the careers of various admirals and generals would add some more personal depth to the game. Further, adding political repercussions (morale/production losses on certain planets, for example) for the removal of popular but incompetent officers would give more of a feel for internal politics in this game, which I feel is currently underplayed a bit.

-The ability to develope tactics, while not necessary, would add a pretty awesome feature very much like the current ship design ability.

Also, I'd like to see more by way of army recruitment. The current system of transporting armies is great, but rather than drafting the entire populations of invaded planets I'd prefer a garrison had to be maintained there (for example) and draftees, if recruited, were made to be of vastly lower quality than the regulars.

Please don't take this as criticism; I have had an absolutely wonderful time playing this game since getting it about a month ago. I just mean to offer my feelings on how to improve an already great game.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The ability to develope tactics,


The ability to manage military schools and watch the progression of the careers of various admirals and generals would add some more personal depth to the game. Further, adding political repercussions (morale/production losses on certain planets, for example) for the removal of popular but incompetent officers would give more of a feel for internal politics in this game


I'd prefer a system where one side declares an invasion (choosing which method of assault or defense to authorize, as well as how many reinforcements to authorize over the course of the war), and the war is then fought out for a variable length of time (determined by the skill and technology of the soldiers, the ability of the generals, and the power of the ships in orbit.


Also, I'd like to see more by way of army recruitment. The current system of transporting armies is great, but rather than drafting the entire populations of invaded planets I'd prefer a garrison had to be maintained there (for example) and draftees, if recruited, were made to be of vastly lower quality than the regulars.


I'd like to see the planetary combat system made a bit more in depth


And all of this is just a bit more in depth? Sheesh... Looks like you have an entire new game going here. I agree that the planetary assult system is lacking but again I believe all of this would take away from the "fun factor" of the game which some of us do look for. I think at the moment the game has equal amounts of fun and strategy making for an interesting, playable game. I do not want to be drawn into a long drawn out planet war over and over and over and over again. I mean when you play a gigantic map and start with the clean up aspect of the game, that gets old. You have a bunch of good suggestions here and I would love to see a game that was all strategy and little else.

-Every army looks the same except for colors. I'd suggest giving each race a unique look (that evolves with technology) and have several unitsets to choose from for custom races.


This I agree 100% and something should be done. The actual screen almost makes me ill. Blech....