Too early for some expansion hints?

Beefed up AI. Terror stars. Beefed up AI. More techs to research, more projects to build. More random events. Beefed up AI. Scenario/Map editing tools. Regenerating anomalies. Beefed up AI. More eyecandy for the ship designer. More random events, more UP topics. Ohh, and I think Brad might spend some more time on the AI.


>

multiplayer?

Hopefully, some more interesting locales. Like binary star systems that cause volcanic activity, planets where one side constantly faces the sun etc. Mineral rich but uninhabitable neutron star systems. Planets knocked out of orbit and drifting through space. I'd like the ability to colonize gas giants with special colony ships, like Cloud Base in The Empire Strikes Back.
I'd also like a more indepth race creation system. I'd like to choose what kind of atmospheres, temperature and gravity my race liked, so that one races hellhole is another races paradise.
I'd like the ability to make more specific espionage missions, like "incite rebellion on planet X".

multiplayer?

I sure hope that Stardock doesn't spend its time and resources to create a multiplayer version or expansion. I for one will not buy it. In multiplayer you set yourself up for many different problems that could and would diminish the game play value. Multiplayer games have been historically ridden with cheaters using little programs to gain supremacy over their opponent. I hate that!! Ruined America's Army for me and I loved that game! Next thing you have to think of are the hang-ups and disconnects. How difficult and frustrating would it be to play a 4X game online to have it disconnect in the middle? or how about when you have your opponent on the ropes... he decides to quit? Then of course there is the random lag and such that is always there to interfere and interrupt the game. I am sure I am forgetting or overlooking other possible reasons to hate Multiplayer games.
Stardock could do so much better to spend their resources creating even more detail, better AI, and expanding upon the franchise in a way that people will still want want to play years into the future. I personally think that Multiplayer isn’t going to address this. At least not for me!

throw in some play be email or lan those are the only times that i play 4x strategy games with multiplayer and ill admit the lan is definently fun though really long to complete

however i dont think that stardock should waste money building servers and having an internet multiplayer because this game just wouldnt do well on an interent multiplayer, its design is too fucused on single player for there to be any money spent on an interent multiplayer that will probably be tried once and then discarded

however i can definently c ppl using the lan and play by email and since that puts the job of creating the network in the hands of the customer it costs less money for the developer and will satisfy those who want to do lan parties with Gal Civ 2

I'd like the option to have a variety of number of planets - like from 1 to 9 in each system. In addition - have some planets have several moons (like jupiter).

Another option is to allow a customer race to have more "points" at start up. Sometimes I like to play a very tough AI setting with some extra bonuses.

\Multiplayer games have been historically ridden with cheaters using little programs to gain supremacy over their opponent.

- not a problem in MP games of this genre.

I hate that!! Ruined America's Army for me and I loved that game! Next thing you have to think of are the hang-ups and disconnects. How difficult and frustrating would it be to play a 4X game online to have it disconnect in the middle?

-there's PBEM option, also turn-based games if they disconnect, it doesn't completely ruin it. At the least, it's better then not having the choice to have it ruined.


or how about when you have your opponent on the ropes... he decides to quit?
-That's when you win. If it's over- resigning isn't dishonorable.

Then of course there is the random lag and such that is always there to interfere and interrupt the game.
-lag in a turn-based game isn't a big issue

I am sure I am forgetting or overlooking other possible reasons to hate Multiplayer games.
Stardock could do so much better to spend their resources creating even more detail, better AI, and expanding upon the franchise in a way that people will still want want to play years into the future. I personally think that Multiplayer isn’t going to address this. At least not for me!

-Honestly, I don't mind not having MP, as I'd rarely use it. However, a MP expansion would do well. I'd suggest two expansions- a MP only expansion, and a SP expansion.

Beefed up AI. Terror stars. Beefed up AI. More techs to research, more projects to build. More random events. Beefed up AI. Scenario/Map editing tools. Regenerating anomalies. Beefed up AI. More eyecandy for the ship designer. More random events, more UP topics. Ohh, and I think Brad might spend some more time on the AI.

Sounds good One question I do have is: regarding a feature that may already exist and which I've not yet seen - are there planetary defences that do things other than boost defensive ship capabilities? ie ion cannons on the planet, ring of defence satellites etc; or orbiting planetary starbases directly linked to a planet? Particularly, is it possible to defend a planet from space based attack without having ships in orbit? I'd imagine it would be possible to create tiny ship hulls and design them as effectively immobile satellites etc. But my main question is whether there currently exists - or is planned to be implemented later on, dedicated planetary defence stations (either in the form of orbiting objects, or say ion cannon installations that sit on one of your surface squares?

Thanks

YAPLFTG (Yet another person looking forward to the game)

Particularly is it possible to defend a planet from space based attack without having ships in orbit?

No.

depends on what you mean. You build up soldiering points, elite troops, etc and the invasion of a high population undefended planet is not exactly a walk over.

but.... there is no way an undefended planet can fire on the invasion transport or any other ship.

I'd love to see a bunch of alien transports land while under heavy anti-air fire!

I'd imagine billions would die.

I think planets should have a square mountable structure on them to improve, planetary defence. An anti air gun that kills % of the incoming invasion force. Giving the troops more of a chance to defend the planet. I always find attacking is heavily one sided against defence.

In reality defending should give the natives a great advantage. In galciv it apparent doesn't. Anyone remember moo2 planetary invasion system?? That was quality, especially when you saw the troops rushing towards each other on the screen and you had Battloid tech. LOL I loved to watch those guys massarce the populous... And why can't you do that now??? If I invade a planet surely I get to choose the fate of the population with some ethical consquences.

Oh Moo2 how I miss you.

I think planets should have a square mountable structure on them to improve, planetary defence. An anti air gun that kills % of the incoming invasion force. Giving the troops more of a chance to defend the planet. I always find attacking is heavily one sided against defence.

One of the small data bits in the beta play I have done is noted the feelings on planetary conquest in the forums here from military to ethical reasons yadda yaddda....

Your the defensive folks on a planet, I just traveled through space with 2 or 3 super-shock troop transports per planet per sector and at least 2 to 3 times the fleet you have in that sector. Through espionage and keeping an eye with a scout on your sector I have been able to know pretty much within the 90th percentile that I can do the following totally and still have a sizable defense force left for a counter attack or to influenece folks to not attack me with minimum populations on my new planets.

Q. Have most if not all of my military constructors arrived in the sector and constructed a military starbase with acceptable bonuses for use by my space armada to offset any bonuses your planet may give to your spacecraft?
A. If not than wait until complete, if yes than proceed to next phase.

Q. Status of all Starbases that are in this specific sector or adjacent sectors that may give you a bonus torwards your navy?
A. Destroyed prior to invasion.

Q. Are resource starbases in the immediate sector owned by you or another race I am at war with?
A. Destroy them prior to invasion.

Q. Are any orbital or space forces still present in orbit around your planets? (Assuming of course you would launch an attack to stave off invasion prior to me whacking your planets.)
A. Destroy them prior to invasion.

Q. Are my fighters and corvettes finished planetary bombardment of key critical military, communications and population centers (see cut away scene that shows me taking and achieving total air supremacy, which comes after the invasion force but should come after I wipe away all orbital and landing problems.)

Q. Did my transports arrive with planetary escorts necessary to safeguard them on entry into atmosphere.
A. Yes, than no further ships needed. No, add ships from space attack force to planetary invasion.



Frogboy stated that the invader gets a sizable offensive advantage and he is tactically and strategically correct. The AI from what I have seen in beta testing (and its only better now) and I are not foolish and will not attempt an invasion against a sector that I will not have a great chance to win.

For those of you that say... well I just won't show all of my weapons to the air supremacy forces, keep thinking that while I bomb the key structures that hold your family, your culture, your history etc etc etc... of course you would fire, thereby giving away your location (if I don't have it already using espionage, which is connected to miliary communications, social programs and at advanced has a ring of spy satelites already in orbit about your planets.)

Although in theory of modern day warfare taking out an entire planet would take longer than a week, the reality is that I just landed 18 billion troops, subdoing a planet of 10 billion and having a remainder of 12 billion to make sure its totally mine in a week....sounds like it could happen when you start thinking on that scale, although this has been hashed out quite a bit in previous threads both for and against.

So basically, although I agree the defenders should have a better chance at defending their homeworlds, in practice and thoughtful invasions I tend to disagree and instead throw the attackers a huge amount of ++++ in invasions.

Lastly, factor in that the invader may have faster or better engines than you (speed 5 to your 3) better sensors than you (Sensors 3 to your 2 or 1) and before you even knew it they have crossed the proverbial neutral zone and launced the attack that you probably knew was in the process of building up but not specifically where and when it would come and you have some huge detractors from your defensive position unfortunately.

I am sure that there are many more factors that folks who have graduated from their respective countries Army/Navy War Colleges could spell out that help or hinder and invasion, but for our purposes I think the above apply rather well.

W/R
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord @ Large

I think the current model of doing things is cool. Think about it... If you have forces in space over a planet and that planet has no ships to defend itself, you have gained total space superiority which means even if the planet had planetary defenses it would be quite easy to take them out carefully one by one. If the defender looses space superiority, he can't get any reinforcements and the attacker can just bomb him to heck from a distance. It's like attacking a country that itself has no planes with a huge airforce: No matter how many SAMs and AA guns they have in place, they will lose in the end. It may take some time but the attacker will win. I think it makes sense and simplifies the whole process a lot (which is good). Just look at your ships stationed on a planet as some kind of Sector Zero defence fleet. Even if I had planetary defenses, I would probably still station ships there for fast preventive strike missions.

If you ever played Stars!, you saw where defenders did not have an advantage. This only worked because you had planetary bombers that could kill millions of people each turn. Otherwise, you lost one "soldier" (i.e.,man, women, children, toddler or baby) for each of the enemy's. So war without bombers meant culling your population by basically a planet to take a planet. Not cool. So either you give a bonus to attackers or you give bombers. Otherwise there will basically be no conquest.