Star Ranger: My point was directed at the person who tried to say that Brad doesn't know strategy.

There are plenty of games with tactical combat. Feel free to go play them. Not everyone wants to babysit units. The game is called Galactic Civilizations not Space Total War.

 

Baby sitting is the right term. Tactical combat would be very negative on the game for those who play on the metaverse. Anyone who wanted to be competitive on the metaverse would have to play out every single battle for maximum efficiency.

I just want to see my designed ships have a pretty eye candy fight.

Virtually nothing is impossible given enough time.  But throwing in tactical combat is not something that should be done lightly or on a whim. To do it even remotely decently would take effort on par with ship design or multiplayer.

And as one of those people who would simply hit "auto", there's not much incentive to put it in. 

The combat viewer exists so that players can see how their designs play out in combat so that they can make tweaks to the design.

Hmm.... I admit that bothers me a little. I wonder why Stardock is doing it that way. Not being a programmer, I don't understand why opposing fleets couldn't fire simultaneously. Can anyone answer this for me?

This is just a matter of giving the attacker a slight advantage. If it was simul, then it would not matter if you attacked or let the other guy attack you. For very disparate fights (ie, a single star-fighter with a 1 attack and 0 defense versus a battleship with a 10 attack and a 10 defense), it won't matter which attacks first, but for a something very much closer, being the attacker and getting the first shot can be important.

Big F'en deal. When I see "stats" such as these someone obviously feels the need to justify himself.

Did Frogboy post his own stats?? Or is Tandis really Frogboy??? Creepy

In the tyrant series of jupiter attacking ships fired first usually because they had the range or made a move to put them on the z axis pointing in the right direction. Good strategic positioning decided the tactics of the fight. For 22 years I studied the art and science of ship manuevers in all axis of warfare under some of the best commanding officers that have ever served under three flags.

The way to make a single fighter take out a battleship is to find the weakness. Until huge behomoth structures or the ultimate in miniturization happens no single ship can be both fast and all powerful including the battleships of GC2. I know I take them out with modified frigate all the time, just take a few and usully I lose one or even two. Course I build them about 1.5 times as fast on three planets and generally outproduce and kill off the AI until it gives up or I get overran by his alliance buddies (still working on the best course of action on alliances, I do like the lone wolf approach even if it doesn't work so well).

I certainly do not have the stats of the game producers here or the software engineering genius behind establishing a game that actually will sell and keep folks in Motor City employed but I can say that I like what GC1 attempted and what I see GC2 becoming strategically.

W/R
Suralle the Straykat
Retired Geographic Plots Coordinator / Fire Control Plots Officer and Submarine Diving Officer as well as "Scope Boy"!

I'd prefer a tac combat option. But I have to admit, playing the beta and zooming in, you almost do not miss it much. you zoom into the battle, and you get to see what's going on pretty well. Tac combay MIGHT be more of a hassle than it is worth.

This combat system--energy weapons, energy defenses, mass driver weapons, mass driver defenses, missle weapons, missle defenses--and hit points--is really cool, but it is not so complicated that good AI couldnt be worked out. And any bad decision you can list that AI makes in a particular decision is EASILY repaired by modding the code. The idea that implmenting it would take away from dev in other areas is very well taken, and that is why I am clear in pointing out that even the BETA of this game is better than anything I have ever played in the genre--better than MOO2, which was my previous fave in the 4X category.

Play Starcraft or WC3 and tell me that the state of game AI sucks. Play some FEAR and see how the enemy squads work as a team. Are they as good as human? Well, it depends on the human, but no, the best 50 players IN THE WORLD might get bored from the 'lack of challenge'--you know, professional players, or those who have the time to elevate their skill at a game to the point where it is more like a job. For the rest of us, who enjoyed alot of AI dependant games (including RTW, Starcraft, WC3, HL2, blah blah, even computer chess, which somehow manages to beat everyone I know on the higher settings), I think the claims of "AI cant do it" is a bunch of baloney. If combat has rules, the computer can be programmed with rules that ensure it is at least proficient, if not godlike, at tac combat.

If it is a deign decision, say so. Don't try to claim there is something wrong with AI or that it is an impossible thing to implement.

And to the guy who says he will not buy the game without tac combat, dude, lighten up. This is the best thing going, period. There are games on my Palm Pilot with comparable compexity and gfx to SEIV--and as far as I can tell, that game is not going to have a sequel/update. This is the only pony in the race, and GC2 is, frankly, AWESOME, with or without tac combat.

Becouse it's TURN based, not real time. And it would be impossible to calculate who destroyed whom first and the destroyed ship shouldn't fire at all...

Actually (and I'm sorry for comparing GalCiv to yet another strategy game), but Birth of the Federation had simultaneous turns in combat--or "phased real-time battles" as some have called it--and it was able to calculate the damage just fine, even if both sides lost ships in a single combat turn. (Granted, it was one of the few things that game *did* do fairly well, but that's a discussion for another time and place. ) All I'm saying is that *is*, in fact, possible to do.

I do hate it that there is no retreat for the loosing side.

Yeah, I'm kinda bummed about that too. But I'm guessing it would be pretty difficult to program the AI to "know" when it should cut its losses and withdraw--especially since it would constantly have to deal with different fleet make-ups throughout the whole game. And if they were going to do that, then they might as well build a whole tactical AI, which we know just isn't possible at this point....

This is just a matter of giving the attacker a slight advantage. If it was simul, then it would not matter if you attacked or let the other guy attack you. For very disparate fights (ie, a single star-fighter with a 1 attack and 0 defense versus a battleship with a 10 attack and a 10 defense), it won't matter which attacks first, but for something very much closer, being the attacker and getting the first shot can be important.

Right, I understand that part. Hmm, I think I've been phrasing the question the wrong way here.... I guess what I'm really asking is, *Why* do the attackers get to fire first (and therefore get the advantage) instead of just having the attacker and defender fire at the same time--especially (as you pointed out, Star Pilot) in close battles, where that could make all the difference? Is it because the defenders would otherwise have a natural advantage that needs to be countered? Is it because it's assumed the attacker would automatically have the initiative anyway? Is it because simultaneous turns are a much bigger pain in the butt to program, and this was simply a lot easier? (And no, that last question isn't sarcasm; I really wouldn't know.)

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a pain. I've already pre-ordered GalCiv 2 (which I have no intention of cancelling), I'm pretty sure I'm going to like it, and this certainly isn't a deal-breaker for me. It's just that with all the sophisticated AI Stardock is putting into this game, it struck me as slightly odd that the attacker would get to go first "just because".... Anyway, thanks for the responses, Spacer Voyager & Star Pilot.

DId you read my first statement Citizen Martok - Ever heard of Moo 2? One of the best selling games of all time. Obviously people didn't think it was that boring!

Yes, Star Ranger, I'm well aware MOO2 is widely considered to be a classic. I myself am among the minority that didn't particularly care for the game (although I certainly understand its appeal), but I realize that's not terribly relavent. What *is* perhaps relavent is that even among those I know who loved the game (and I've known quite a few), the vast majority of them have said that the tactical combat, while being fun to watch, was one of the game's biggest weaknesses. Smaller ships were always at a disadvantage, and it was too easy to beat the AI. If I'd ever bothered to compile all the stories, anecdotes, and forum posts about a MOO2 player smashing an AI fleet while losing only 1-2 ships even when outnumbered, it would probably be enough to fill up a set of encyclopedias!

When you start winning that many lopsided victories in a strategy game, it starts to get boring and lose its replayability. Seriously, when you know you can beat the AI in battles all the time, what's the point in playing? And there are too many empire-building games out there (besides just MOO2) that are like that. Since I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Brad & Co. know all this (sorry, I couldn't help the sarcasm there), and since they also wanted to make sure they invested their resources in areas they knew would be fun and/or have a major impact on the game, that's why GalCiv 2 isn't going to have player-controlled combat.

As I indicated in my earlier post, I'd be just as thrilled as you if this game *did* have tactical combat implemented--but not if it was going to come at the cost of decent strategic AI, ship design, diplomacy, etc. This isn't Homeworld or Nexus. In an empire-building game like GalCiv, tactical combat matters less than the other stuff. Yes, I will probably miss it somewhat, but I completely understand the reasons why Stardock isn't including it. If I were them, and were limited by the time and budget restraints that they've had to deal with, I doubt I would've done things much differently (if at all). I know I'll enjoy the game either way.

For the rest of us, who enjoyed alot of AI dependant games (including RTW, Starcraft, WC3, HL2, blah blah, even computer chess, which somehow manages to beat everyone I know on the higher settings), I think the claims of "AI cant do it" is a bunch of baloney.

I agree these are all great games, but the one we should really focus on here is RTW. The others don't really qualify for tactical battles as far as what is being discussed here. Sure RTW is fun. But truthfully, it is exceedingly easy. I think a lot of people play it because you can win as the underdog due to the fact that the AI is really quite horrible at the tactical battles (and not the greatest on the map either). Let's not forget it looks really cool too.

I think any improvement in AI is great, however lets not try to kill too many birds with one stone. I think we have a game here that is going to play exceptional strategicaly (for AI that is). By introducing another element of AI that would have to think in a totaly different fassion, the designers risk losing the gains they made for the strategic AI.