Thinking of buying, few Questions first.

I think this game is better than Civ 4, it has all the features of Civ 4 basicly but it also has a campagain, something Civ 4 didnt have, a very faithful dev team which make patchs and expasion packs for their games, they have made one already that got a very high ratings on major review sites like ign and gamespot. They also have another expasion pack coming out that really is a big expasion pack, new ships, research (thats the biggest change that really is different from Dark Avatar) a big deathstar type of thing that destroys stars (does not shoot a big green laser but eh!)

I think this game is better than Civ 4, space rocks too

Which one has the bigger tech tree?

When you fight, do you actually see the space battles, or just get the results?

Do you only fight in space or also on the planets?

Thanks for the input.

Also, I see that Sins of a solar empire is out. Is that game similar to this one, better, worse?

Why does it matter? A large tech tree doesn't make the game better.



You can elect to see them, but you can't change the outcome in any way. And the animation of the battle isn't terribly interesting.



Yes, you fight on planets. But it's not a very involved sort of thing. You don't build ground units like you do ships; it's number of invaders vs. number of defenders. With some modifiers for advantages and so forth.

It matters because I asked the question.

As far as ground battles, how do you determine invaders vs. defenders numbers wise?

How is the diplomacy? Does it work, is there any purpose to it, or is it just window dressing.

Thanks for the help.

I like elements of both tech tree designs. I can't say for sure which is "longer". Overall I give the edge to the tech trees in C4 and its "first person there" bonuses of some of the techs, and the clear separation between the ages.

Bear in mind GC2 isn't multiplayer, if that's important to you.

I feel diplomacy is much better implemented in GC2. There are many more options for manipulating your opponents, in my opinion. I've played winning games as only a diplomat/manipulator (didn't start any wars), and had fun doing it. I also prefer GC2's espionage system, although it's less involved.

For invasions, once you research the required tech, you build transports to bring troops to invade the native populations of the worlds (unless you're the Korath, they play a bit differently). The more troop modules you add to your ships, the more that you bring to a single invasion. If the invading force wins, they take control of the planet with the remaining troops.

For some other unique features:

Also, depending on whether or not you like this sort of thing, you can turn on mega-events (at least with the expansion, DA) that can mix up the late game rather than have it be an inevitable slog to the end.

The ship editor is a great strategic element in the game. Designing the right ship for the job is fun.

The AI seems more interesting and varied in GC2.

Thanks, that helps alot. I am definetly interested in it, especially at 20. What are the expansions called, and are they worth the price?

The first is called Dark Avatar, and it's been out a little over a year. It's well worth the price to get the 'Gold' edition which has both DL (the short-hand version of the original, Dread Lords) and DA. Frankly, I rarely fire up DL because I prefer the added customization, 'super abilities' and mega events (plus, I just really, really like the Korath - spore ships FTW!)

Twilight of the Arnor (usually shortened TA on the forums) is in beta right now, with the 6th beta released yesterday. I guess they're looking at an April release. Since I live in Europe and have a horribly slow internet connection, I haven't ponied up and purchased TA yet, but as soon as it goes 'gold', I'm taking the laptop down to the local library, buying, and downloading it. From reading the experiences of the pre-orderers (who have the opportunity to also be tandem beta-testers), they seem to really like it.

The added benefit of the new expansion pack will be even more in-depth AI, individual tech trees and much more diversity between the different species.

All in all, if you're thinking of getting the game, get the Gold edition with DL and DA for sure, and I imagine if you like TBS games, you'll be sold and will gladly buy TA.

(There's always the demo, too, if you just want to give it a try)

GC2 definitely has the bigger tech tree, however many of the techs you can research are just variations on a theme. For instance there's 5 or so levels for every weapon and engine type , which don't do anything but reduce the size of the component you put on your ship.



Sins is an Real Time Strategy, not a turnbased 4X game like Civ 4 or GalCiv2. Totally different format.

galciv is my first 4x game i ever play and like

Download the demo! and try it out yourself. It will answer lots of questions. https://www.galciv2.com/Downloads.aspx

There are soo many options and variables to tweak in this game that it can be very hard for a beginner to learn.

Galactic Civilization II is a game, I can see myself playing tweny years from now, unless they come out with galactic civ III.

>>Galactic Civilization II is a game, I can see myself playing tweny years from now, unless they come out with galactic civ III.
<<

Yes this is what makes the game special - the replayability. Similar in a way to a good board game like chess or scrabble,in that every game is different and it is satisfying every time.

Quite an achievement!

This game just makes me keep coming back for me, i sadly have already gotten bored of Sins and came right back to Gal Civ 2

Sadly, I don't like the reasearch methods much in either GC2 or Civ 4. That whole "Okay guys, we just discovered X. Let's PICK what we want to discover next" seems a bit forced to me. Unnatural, even. I really liked that blind reasearch thing Alpha Centauri had, where you sort of picked a reasearch area, but discoveries would be made as they happened. Or something like in the first Master of Orion, Theme Park, and Europa Universalis 3, where you have six or so areas an allocate funding seperately. Space Empires 3-5 also had that neat thing where they divided theoretical and practical research up although I don't think it was particularly implemented well.

I like how both games lack tactical combat. I *like* tactical combat, but it feels really inappropriate in an empire builder to me. I mean, in a 4x game, you're, what, the president or king or something. Not a general. That and these sorts of games lend themselves to having very big armies which are already fairly unmanageable, so throw in a seperate battle system...

Anyway, throwing out some quick advantages Galciv 2 has. Not inclusive. Just some stuff I liked.

First, you get capships which can explore anomolies, effectively levelling them up. They're sort of like a hero unit in the HoMM games, and also give the game a bit of Star Control 2-ish flavor.

Second, Galciv 2 has really cool diplomacy. The races are pretty unique, there's this parliament thing which is quite cool, and the AI is very nice.

Third, the technology, I think, is a bit better. A lot of it has a direct statistical effect on your society, which makes it feel a lot more relevant.

Fourth, starbases

Stuff Civ 4 did better I, I thought:

Resources. Trade is really well done in Galciv 2, sure, but in Civ 4 it's just more detailed. You can't build axemen without bronze, or nukes without uranium. Anacreon, a 4x in space, had something like this -- food as resources, along with something called ambrosia which was a bit of a drug, money, and some construction/fuel things. I believe Fragile Allegiance also had a more detailed resource system, although I think you were mostly selling those. I think something where you had certain resources you'd need in GC2 would be neat. It was sort of approaching that with the little happiness/cultural/whatever resources on the map, but couldn't they be made a bit less abstract?

The tech tree itself. GC2's was bigger, but researching the wheel is a bit more epic than researching "lasers 3" or whatever.

I like the notion of terrain that Civ 4 has that you don't really get in space. Terrain modifies in combat, moving... needing to research boats to get across the ocean. Stuff like that.

Civ IV just seems a lot more balanced at times, honestly. I can't really explain this one, but from a numerical standpoint, some things in IV seem sturdier.