GalCiv 1/2 and MoO series - what is missing ?

from GalCiv2 Forums
I already posted this in another thread but I think it deserves it's own topic .


Here is a small list of things that was in "antique" MoO 1 but still missing in GalCiv 2 :

1. Planet and atmosphere types + racial abilities relevant + race that can live even on "PQ0" planets . Also AI should take this in acount in it's strategy.

2. Espionage path + spy race like Darlocs (not as small adition but as game tactiks).

3. Ground combat path/race with ground combat animation and technologies speciffic to ground combat (I think here additional types of atacks should not only cost money but be RESEARCHED first).

4. Tech tree should be much much bigger, it looks "long" when you start to play it becomes very short soon - not too many technologies there. Also technologies from different scince areas should be "crossed" and not flat branched in the meaning that for example to develop new type of missiles you have to develop new type of engine first and such ...

5. Planetary bombardment should be available for ships with "bombs" modules of cause bombing planets this should affect your diplomacy and aligment.

6. Planetary defences should be researched and available to be built. Under this I mean - planetary shields , planetary bases , defence setelite platforms - so they could fight agains atacking ships in "fleet combat" look that btw should be the only combat even if doing 1 ship to 1 ship combat.
Of cause this as well as 2,3 and 5 should not be a "must to do" but one of the PATHs to play (and win) a game.

7. Weapons have to have range ! We need 2 types of engines or 2 characteristics for engine - one for interstelar trevel and one for "fleet combat" (this way weapons range will come into a play).

8. Different "ages" to start the game - depending of "age" you will start with different number of technologies / ships (and in big+ galaxies) number of start planets.

Basically to put it simple I believe GalCiv2 should start at least with stuff available in MoO1 and then improve it, add some new things , look for some new things in other games like Star Empires and MoO2 but defenatly not to have less then MoO1.
I mean we shouldn't blindly follow MoO path , GalCiv1 made a lot of great additions too , like race atitude (good/bad/neutral) , diplomocy , random events and such but we should take the best of MoO series first

And I really (please,please please) want to hear some feedback on this from developers even if they don't going to implement any of it I want to know why and have a chance to argue
ideas
11,287 views 18 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
1) Agree
2) no necessary ; this is flavor. If easy to do, then yes.
3) Agree ; we need more techs for ground combat. The result is almost always a win for the attacker, especially with some money in your basket, which was not the case in Moo: money should not be sufficient to ensure a colony capture.
4) Agree ; flat trees as done now have huge drawbacks. I'll post something about this in another thread.
5) Agree an don't agree ; bombardment should be possible (and planetary shields-defenses too) ; don't agree with alignment: in GC, war is total war ; if you unload troops, you'll make no prisoners; there are no mixed planets as was in Moo. Hence, killing the opponent by bombardment, invasion or even WDM is pretty much the same ethically speaking. The game assumes that we have a survival competition, at least between the races wich don't cooperate (ally).
6) Agree. See 5.
7) Don't agree. This would require tactical combat, which doesn't seem to be a feature in GC2 (or is it ???). Would be very nice, though.
8) Agree. Certainly easy to implement. Skips the early stages for those who want to start with action (not my case).

Yves
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
i wouldnt like to see this game to just hardcopy things from MoO straight over to GC2, but puting things more gently. the developers should look at current titles of the genre and see ways they could make improvements on already great idears
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Ewan Finlayson
Nobody talking about "copeing things from MoO" we talking about USING IDEAS .
(On the other hand I think at least 50% of users here would gladly accept MoO or MoO2 with just newer graphics , some technology additions , better AI a diplomosy + may be some other ideas).



moi-meme on your comments :

2) -of couse it shouldn't be main thing but it better be one of the paths if not mine but then on of AI races (in MoO I was always wiping out Darlocs first before they become too powerfull )

7) - I believe the "fleet batles" promised will be some kind of tactical combat. anyway , giving an OPTION to fight tactical is very nice, however it should be an OPTION only in case you decide to" tweak" outcome in all other cases automatic combat should be ok.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree with all the ideas... however you guys do realize that programing is hard work so they may not be able to implement it however i suggest the usage of EXP Packs or Stuff like Expanded universe that GC1 Got that way you would not be under so much pressure and still can do it and generate a lil more income...
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
However 7) is a diffuclut thing so it may not be implemented for a long time though so i want it as a feature but it can wait its not interially Required and also some form of planetary invansion thats different than GC1. Not 3D tactical but a simpiler system that forces this battles to last for weeks. and after you must occupy the planet until it is fully under ur control IE:once u "Conqured" a planet you gain military control But not policital control you must gain poliictal control by holding the planet long enough for the pop to accept you as their new leader or kill em all somting like that having just conqured a planet the pop may not like you as a new leader and productivity will go down until u completly own it. Actually all wars damage bulidings... so even convential warfare causes slight damage IE:planetary improvements that don't involve PQ and do not damage PQ unless it is a extreme measure like allowing useage of like super artilery a planetary invansion option which does damage PQ on random and lots of bulidings but give ur army a large advantage but costs some good money aprox 300bc-800bc depending on sit.... fill in any ideas you guys have.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Lord KiRon
i would love it if this was a new updated version of MoO2 (which MoO3 should of been but they made it crap) and using idears is a diffrent name of copying
also on ground combat (once again refering to MoO2) u could have a plantery bombardment to soften up there armies but destroyin there citys, also when u take the planet, some of the population is still in diffience and takes so time for all the population to become sympothetic
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
I must agree you are opening a can of worms by comparing the two games. Sure I would be more than excited to see GalCiv 2 resemble Moo2 with uber 3d engine. But that's not going to happen. Surely you are insualting Frogboy who is trying to crweate something unique, so he isn't simply touted as a copy expert.

Altough #7 might get some play. The dreadfully slow engines at the start are a pain. Making a second type of engine that is much faster but confined tot he same sector might be a good idea to implement. To counter any rushes be it military or colonial. I suggest you pitch that idea in seperate thread.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
"Basically to put it simple I believe GalCiv2 should start at least with stuff available in MoO1 and then improve it"

You are correct. Its what made the MoO series so good, the DEPTH. Minimal graphics, huge possibilities. Ofcourse the GalCiv series should have its own new and unique things, but including as many of the features that made previous games great should be a priority.
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
I hope non of GalCiv2 developers feels insulted becouse of this .
After all MoO and MoO2 created the genre same way as Doom and Wolfshtein 3D created the genre of 3D shooters.

And you see , GalCiv1 was released "on the wave" of MoO3 complete failure . So lot of people that waited for "read MoO3" setteled for (hope no one insulted but it's true) GalCiv.

It had some unique ideas but no one will argue - graphics was barely tolaratable and a lot of "obiouse" things like ability to play with race other then humans and ship combat - were missing.
Why we know it were missing ? - Becouse it was in MoO series and we wanted them

Same with MoO "features" listed abouve - we want them ...
I think now when engine is not finalized yet and fleet combat is not finished it's a good time to add them. Otherwise people still will want them and it will be a bit disapointing not to have them and again wait for "GalCiv3" to get them ...

Now if you remember new Star Empires is under development too and another game in the genre (forgot the name) so this time GalCiv2 will have rivals on the market - which is good actually , but personally I preffer GalCiv to win as I like the independed studios aproach and GalCiv in general.
However the best game will be decided by features and interest of gameplay and resemble MoO or not my suggestions improve both.

P.S. : Still d'like developers to comment
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
There is no rivalry between galciv and SE. If both games are good we'll end up owning both. Pure and simple.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

There is no rivalry between galciv and SE. If both games are good we'll end up owning both. Pure and simple.



It's all that you noticed in entire post ? Some secondary almost unrelated comment ?

Anyway I wll probably buy both too , GalCiv2 already did. But this is not the question wether or not such old "deihard fanatics" like me will buy but if "general public" will buy ...

Anyway , I getting some strange replies - intead of saying if it's good things or not GAMERS tell me that "it will be hard to implement" - Who cares ?
I expect such answers from programmers not gamers .

About programers btw: Frogboy , anyone else - Care to comment ?
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

GalCiv is not MOO.  It was never designed to be like MOO.

GalCiv has lots of features MOO doesn't and vice versa because they are different games.

GalCiv I had a rival that came out at the same time - it was called Master of Orion 3.

Here's my views on these items:

1) I don't want to have to worry about atmosphere types with my aliens. I want the aliens to be competing for the very same planets with equal umph.

2) We have espionage already. And there is a spy race (high espionage ability).

3)  Ground combat tactics do come with research requirements. Just not in beta 1. Did you play GalCiv I? Similalry, various technologies gave ground soldiers abilities.

4) We only have part of the tech tree in.  Again, did you play GalCiv I? We have a huge tech tree.

5) No.  I loved MOO 1 but the end game in it was weak. Every game ended with the genocide race as each side went aroudn wiping out the other with mega fleets jumping in, wiping out the planet and giong on to the next one.

6) We are considering having planetary improvements that act as space defense platforms.

7) Weapons don't need to have range. It's not a tactical battle game. Range makes no sense in a strategic battle system.

8) This is what scenarios are for.  Did you play GalCiv I?  This stuff will be in GalCiv II.

If you're looking for a MOO clone, you're not ever going to be happy with GalCiv.  We have our own ideas on what should be a good PC strategy game.

 

Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
Thank you Frogboy for laying it down. I said the same thing but I guess it needs to come from the Master to have any weight.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
Thank you for Frogboy for your reply .

I still sence a bit of bitternes in it from my questions, I am sorry if I "sounded" agressive and it triggered it but it was never my intent (however I did hoped this things to be in Game ).

On your permition I will comment your answers a bit from my point of view I hope you still reading this

Btw: To make things clear I did played both MoO 3 and mentioned in my post that it was complete failure and I did played GalCiv 1 actually up until now over and over again , now I play GalCiv 2 Beta 3a
The negative comments I made about graphics are true but thats why we have GalCiv2 right ? And I still remember times of having great fun playing text based D&D games

1.Valid argument. I still may argue that developing speciffic technologies at a bit later stage will result in "aliens to be competing for the very same planets with equal umph" while adding some interesting "tendency" touch in the eearly stages of the game. But you are Master

2. I have to agree but unless something will be added on later stages the espionage as it looks now in Beta 3a is a bit too primitive on my taste.

3. Yes I played GalCiv1 but if you as you stated played MoO 1 you should know what I ment Of couse it's your choice to make it different .

4.Ok clear on this.

5. I agree on the bit week ending in MoO and I liked cultural and scintific victories additions in GalCiv1 a lot, but what it have to do with planetary bombardments ? I think it's just one of the paths of military way nothing more...

6. Great , but without tactical combat they are loose most of the apeal.

7. Here I have to disagree with you completely. I don't see how I can make you change your mind but I believe that tactical combat should be an option. Of couse it never should be a "main thing" and the player should be able to play (and win) the game without it BUT it could add a nice visual atraction to the game as well as give the players that DO preffer tactical combat chances to "tweek" the outcome of the battle a bit as well as to make next logical step after designing a ships - to see and CONTROL them in battle.
But only if they wish , as I imagin it myself playr can get something like a window asking if he wants "autoresolve" the battle or to get involved in tactical combat. Of cause it should be an option in settings to use either one by default.
Just my (may be not so humble ) opinion.

8. Lost me on this one , how sensors related to the "ages" and set of "start up" technologies ? Do you mean that this is your way to prevent races from coming in contact until the "accumulate" some set of technologies ? - Doesn't work so well on small size galaxies ...


Anyway , thank you again for your answers.
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

There's no "bitterness" involved.  Please realize that over the past several years as we've been making these games that we have regularly had people come in who really don't want to play OUR game but rather would have us create a new version of Master of Orion.  And so we tend to resist that kind of thing.

You are making far FAR too many gameplay judgements based on the beta.  Please check the beta time table to get an idea of what we're looking for.  Beta 4, in October, is the best you will want to start looking for specific game play.

As for tactical combat, no, we don't have it, and we don't want to have it.  This isn't a tactical game. It's a strategy game.   I don't want to have to micro-manage battles.  I would ahve been happier with MOO if I could have just hit Auto and known that the result woudl ahve been the best-case scenario.  But I knew that if I didn't personally manage every battle then they wouldn't go as well as they could have if I had run the battle.

As for scenarios -- GalCiv II supports scenarios.  You can set up everything from waht techs you start with to how fast research is accomplished and pretty much everything else.  It's not in beta 3 but it was in GalCiv: Altarian Prophecy.

 

Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It's not in beta 3 but it was in GalCiv: Altarian Prophecy.

Have this too
Belive me I am your fan

About "Auto" button in MoO ... well I think it results depended on AI algorithm used to resolve the battle, now when computers defeat humans even in game of chess creating a powerfull AI algorithms hard but possible.
I respect your choice but mark my words if you not doing it in GalCiv2 you will be "forced" by the gamers to do it in GalCiv3 or if you resist hard enough in GalCiv4

About "beeing MoO clone" ... may be it hits an ego a bit but what so bad to be MoO "clone" ? I mean not real clone of cause but "clone with additions" ?
You yourself listed some great additions you introduced to the genre like research or cultural victoryes.
Personally, I think you have to agree, MoO is a great game , as with any game with some weekneses, it defined a genre and I think the best "strategy" if take everything good it have , imorove the weeknesses and change something good only if you have something better.

Anyway, I believe we should end this descussion - I got what I wanted - your position on future dev. of GalCiv2 .
Keep up a good work ,
I am going to bush you here on forums on every mistake you made , so - don't do any
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
About "Auto" button in MoO ... well I think it results depended on AI algorithm used to resolve the battle, now when computers defeat humans even in game of chess creating a powerfull AI algorithms hard but possible.
I respect your choice but mark my words if you not doing it in GalCiv2 you will be "forced" by the gamers to do it in GalCiv3 or if you resist hard enough in GalCiv4

About "beeing MoO clone" ... may be it hits an ego a bit but what so bad to be MoO "clone" ? I mean not real clone of cause but "clone with additions" ?
You yourself listed some great additions you introduced to the genre like research or cultural victoryes.
Personally, I think you have to agree, MoO is a great game , as with any game with some weekneses, it defined a genre and I think the best "strategy" if take everything good it have , imorove the weeknesses and change something good only if you have something better.

Anyway, I believe we should end this descussion - I got what I wanted - your position on future dev. of GalCiv2 .
Keep up a good work ,
I am going to bush you here on forums on every mistake you made , so - don't do any


I think the problem with AI resolving battles is that the AI needs to understand how best to use your design. I might specifically design a ship to kill the new Drengin cruiser with its improved shields, but the AI might decide to attack that older armour heavy ship with it instead. At the moment I'm not convinced that Stardock are making a mistake about tactical combat. I'm withholding judgement until the fleet combat system goes in and is tweaked a bit. What they're doing atm sounds good, it will give some graphical glitz without introducing the aggro of getting a tactical mode built, balanced and polished.

The 'moo clone' point is debatable. Do you want Moo4 by another name, a game which improves on the formers weak spots or do you want genuine innovation? Do you want an improved game or a new game? I think GC2 will be different enough from GC1 to stand in its own right as a new title, and I think thats better than settling for plundering the grave of another game.
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
About "beeing MoO clone" ... may be it hits an ego a bit but what so bad to be MoO "clone" ?


The whole point of being different from MOO is: If GC and MOO were that similar, then who would buy which? Better to be different enough that most people will want to buy both.

And -- don't forget the copyright implications.