Misophist, I don't see it mentioned in this thread, but it's been brought up in other tactical combat threads. The reason is because most AI can't handle tactical combat even close to the level of the average player. So what happens is that people feel forced to micromanage combat to reduce their losses or have a better chance of winning because they know they'll do better than autocombat. I only liked tactical combat in MoO2 when I had a new ship class or weapon to play with, but I still always did tactical combat for exactly this reason. It just made the game drag out.

Frankly, given the relative simplicity of GC2 combat, you're either going to have a form of combat that would bore you to tears (just choosing which of your ships shoots at which of theirs), or you wind up doing a whole different combat model involving ship speed, weapons ranges, possibly even firing arcs, at which point you now have two distinct and seperate games, but you have to balance them against each other so that the difficulty levels line up, the AI is equally challenging in both modes, etc. Not at all practical.

Tactical ala Stars! is what I'd like to see (similar to what was suggested above by Doom Kracken). I understand all of Stardock's arguements, but choosing strategies of attack/defence would go a long way toward immersiveness AND avoid the pitfalls of a full tactical engine, which have been pretty boring in most other 4X games..

Frankly, given the relative simplicity of GC2 combat, you're either going to have a form of combat that would bore you to tears (just choosing which of your ships shoots at which of theirs), or you wind up doing a whole different combat model involving ship speed, weapons ranges, possibly even firing arcs, at which point you now have two distinct and seperate games, but you have to balance them against each other so that the difficulty levels line up, the AI is equally challenging in both modes, etc. Not at all practical.

I thought that the MOO1 &2 combat system was pretty good. Granted it was simplistic but there's just something inherently satisfying with out-maneuvering the enemy and firing a weapons. For me, the MOO1 &2 were the most entertaining space strategy games I'd ever played. Now, SEIV's combat system is an example of what not to do. I've never played anything as boring as that. I just want to have some fun blowing up the enemy ships myself.

I really don't understand the selective abstraction that has gone into the game. For example, it's been decided that the ruler of an empire wouldn't be controlling individual ships in battle. Ok, but who cares about that if it's fun. On the other hand we have these weird resources, the logistics resource in particular, that float out in space and impart a logistics benefit to your empire. Excluding user controlled tactical combat just doesn't make sense if you're going to use the argument that the ruler of the empire isn't going to be controlling individual ships in combat.

Sure, it may be difficult to develop a viable tactical AI but if Stardock does do this then they'd have a true heir to MOO2.

Misophist, the point isn't how good the combat systems are. I never played MoO1, but the MoO2 tactical AI was so simple to outmaneuver it gave me no satisfaction after I saw its blind points, and yet it was stupid enough that I wasn't about to let it be in charge of my ships. THAT is the point. Unless the AI is good enough to be equal to the player, that isn't going to change, and saying that an AI of that quality "may be difficult to develop" is sweeping the garbage under the rug. It would be a major resource drain for something that might not even be good enough to use in the end. Brad would love to have another month of nothing but polishing the strategic AI in GC2.

Look at all the strategy games with a tactical AI, and of all those, how many had a tactical AI that wasn't easy for an experienced gamer to beat? We're just not to the point that an AI can handle all the variables in tactical combat, those sneaky humans are too good at finding loopholes in the rules. The MoO1 repulsor trick is a perfect example. The tactical AI would have to either be programmed to recognize that specific trick, and all other cheese tricks, or would have to have the analytical ability to figure out why it is loosing battles and figure out a way to compensate. The first isn't going to happen because there will always be new cheese tricks, and the second is the kind of AI that exists only in research labs and takes more CPU time than the average consumer computer would have available and still have decent response time.

Right now, the release-level AI is good enough that I find "challenging" against 9 opponents just that. I might win 1 in 3 games, and I used to be one of the higher rated GC1 players. Add tactical combat and the inevitable cheese, and "challenging" is going to loose a lot of its meaning.

There hasnt been a ruler of a nation on the battlefield fighting for hundreds of years. Did Winston Churchill, Hitler, Staling, Roosevelt, et al go down and tell the battalions and divisions where to go in the fight for Europe. No!!! As for misophists statement that because there are resources a leader could choose to harvest that they should be able to control individual ships, that is ridiculous. That arguement doesnt make any sense. It isnt abstract at all to say that there could be some resources to harvest that could give an advantage. We have examples of that right on our own planet. What leader wouldnt instruct his people to go out and harvest that with support of government monies. There is a reason that there are generals. It is totally insane to think the president/Emperor of a 50 BILLION person empire would be out controlling his little four man fighters as they attack the enemy. INSANITY!!! I will say that I wont buy the expansion, no matter what it has in it, if it has tactical combat. Go somewhere else if you want a tactical space sim. There doesnt seem to be a huge shortage of games that do that.

Even if the resources were dedicated to building a tactical combat sim into GC2, the AI that Brad/Frogboy/Draginol keeps working on would be the mind behind it. As he and a veritible plethora of other folks talk every night you can bet that the tweaks would go in that would stop everything they come up with and some. Given that and the fact that its freaking rare that the normal (I mean folks that have an average QT) can be a simple chess AI I think I would rather let the tactical side go on this one and keep focused on the goals.

1) Ship Building
2) Race Configurable

I know there were more goals than them two, but for me, them two were met in beta, on the 21st we will test this.... AI and either be spanked or hand out a tail lashing. I don't have to want to worry about tactics when strategically the odds right now are that I will get my proverbial tail stepped on.

Kinda like Yeah! We won the battle... earth... earth come in Terran Space Agency this is TSA Stormbringer....

****** Incoming Flash Traffic *******
From: Supreme Alliance Command, Terran Space Agency (SAC)
To: All TSA Commaders
Subj: Announcing cessation of hostilities with the Drengin Empire

msg: All commaders are to proceed to the nearest stardock and turn over ships to weapons inspectors there. That is all.

May the Kat Lords have mercy on our souls.

****** End Message ******

Game over....

Tactical Score: Pretty good.
Strategic Score: Freaking lousy cause you lost the war. Your economy is in shambles, your culture is more Korx than Kat.

But hey, you were really good 1 out of 3 times in battle with the AI!

Anywho,

Good Hunting, to all tactically and strategically.

W/R
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord @ Large

No, I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Please read my posts again, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Does anyone remember Rules of Engagement? It’s an old game from around the early 90's. It had an interlocking interface with another game made by the same company that was a squad based combat sim (think X-Com). Why couldn't the same be done by Stardock. Have them make a tactical space fleet game that could interlock with Gal Civ 2. That way you can buy the parts you want. I think that the creation of an adequate tactical AI would be a little overboard, but if you could buy the expansion or a whole separate game, both groups would be happy. If what I've heard about the AI in this game is true, Stardock can do a tactical AI justice as well.

Ok, but my point, which you missed, is that adding tactical combat wouldn't take away from what you already have.

You do understand the concept of development time, right? I'd rather the devs spend time making or improving something that I'd use than some tactical minigame, which would exist simply to allow strategically poor players to resolve their problems through tactical dominance because the AI wouldn't be able to fight for squat without some SERIOUS dev time.

My points:

1) GC2 combat is too simplistic to make a tactical combat mode that won't radically alter the balance of ship design etc.

Your response: "I thought that the MOO1 &2 combat system was pretty good." Not what I'd call a refutations.

2) An AI that can effectively deal with the complex variables of tactical combat as implemented like MoO 2 hasn't reached the consumers yet.

Your response: "Sure, it may be difficult to develop a viable tactical AI..." Please understand the scope of this: the developers aren't completely happy with the strategic AI of GC2 yet, after months of work. Frogboy has stated that he'd love to dedicate an entire month to nothing but fine tuning the GC2 AI. I still say that the tactical AI would be more difficult than the strategic AI and would also further complicate the strategic AI, as ship design would become more critical.

3) Tactical combat will make for uneven playing fields, making the Metaverse hard to balance.

Your response: "I only play games for my own enjoyment as I play; not for the thrill of having a higher score than someone else." So your reason for playing are the only valid ones? The same argument cuts both ways, people that don't think the ruler of the empire should be out playing admiral have differing oppinions, and what's to say that their opinion isn't as valid or more so.

Your point:

1) Letting the ruler micromanage resources but not micromanage combat is "selective abstraction". Sorry, I don't buy it. The US president can certainly say that he wants to open up the Alaskan oil reserve (though I don't think he can order it himself), or even invade some country, but when it comes down to the combat, he gets out of the way.

Two words that make all the difference between MOO tactical combat and GalCiv's combat system: Weapon range.

Two words that make all the difference between MOO tactical combat and GalCiv's combat system: Weapon range.

Hmm...what does that mean? Since you're reading this thread, Brad, please keep an open mind on tactical combat. If anyone can do it, it's you and Stardock. My faith in your work is what convinced me to pre-order last March. Thanks.

You have some the snappiest responses of all the users on this forum.