features of moo2 that would be nice in gc2.

1) I think the first one might be good for the expansion. I know it's been batted around some.
2) Will NEVER happen in this game. The devs, for good reason don't want tactical exploitation in this game.

3) This is something I would like to see, some random stuff in the combat. LIke the occasional kamikaze run that would heavily damage a capital ship, etc...

the hero/leader will add to single player gameplay if done right.

tactical combat though..
maybe it'll come when multiplayer option is around (aka galciv3 or galciv4) due to the difficulty in balancing AI to compete with players. Of course, i'm sure stardock can figure out the optimal configuration at all time for the AI, but that really wouldn't be fun anymore.


Lastly.. i wonder if stardock is tired of people suggesting them to do something from MoO or Civ.. especially over and over.

While it is a good idea to borrow certain aspects from other games.. if you borrow everything from a game, it would only become a clone. It would be good if galciv can explore its own field and emphasize on what they have that other games don't have.

2, tactical combat, would ruin the game for me. Putting my feelings aside, doing it right would be as large an undertaking as creating GC2 was to begin with.

I would say tactical combat in GalCiv II is a horrible horrible idea, however that's just fanatical fanboyism talking. The thing is, I'm really just neutral on it to begin with, it wouldn't effect my enjoyment either way.

The thing is, we DO determine the outcome of battles, we determine the outcome of each and every battle by designing, building, gathering, and maneuvering fleets into (or away from) battles where they can either achieve victory or accomplish an objective. We do in a sense take control in tactical battle, because we SEE how effective our ships are, plus we get to see the ships we decorated maneuver in combat without the distraction of controlling them. Then, we take the information from that battle and it effects the next battle we choose to enter. (edit: even if you don't =choose= the next battle, it still teaches you to mount better engines which will effect the war from then on)

If they could instantly institute controllable combat (turn-based I would hope but that's besides the point), and make it 100% bug-free, and it wouldn't take time away from making the rest of the game better, then okay fine I wouldn't mind it. But that just isn't how things are. The reason all the 'fanboys' are so defensive is they don't want to crash 10% more often or wait three months longer for a given feature just so people can have a completely pointless "MoO Too" feature.

i would love the OPTION of tactical combat!!!

I love the combat in Moo2, but I'd say no on it in galciv2.

I would like to see some form of leaders though.

Oh right, the game is turn base strategy, not turn base tactics

The problem with Tactical Combat in strategy games like MOO2/GalCiv/Etc. is that it's to easy to exploit. Once the players figure out how the AI behaves they can easily take advantage of it and do things the AI would never think of or be able to counter. One thing that often happens is the Hit and Run tactic. Ships are loaded with missles and the player fired them off while falling back to the edge of the map out of attack range of the AI. This was a HUGE bug in MOO3 when players designed ships with one shot missle launchers entered combat fired off the salvo then hit retreat knowing the missles would reach the enemy before they finished withdrawing and killing a chunk of the forces. Allowing them to be effectively invunerable.

No matter how hard you try to balance tactical combat until they perfect true AI there is little chance you can make a workable balanced system that a good human player wouldn't be able to find a tactic or weakness in AI they can exploit to their advantage. Which then just leads to having to make the AI cheat like giving them more ships or better ships. Even in MOO2 which was about as closely balanced as it could of been there were lots of easy tactics to fair better against the computer like for one focus on a single ship and take it out quick. The AI often spread it's fire power around making it less effective. I'm not going to go into any more detail but there was a ship design in MOO2 you could make that could take on Hundreds of Doomstar vessels by itself in tactical yet if you ran it in strat mode it wouldn't fair so well. Personally I loved the tact combat in MOO2 but I don't think it's for this game.

To me, these ideas seem a bit oriented towards adding bits and parts which are to be managed. I am not sure everyone prefer to manage little things even if these are nice curiosities of SF world. I don't, but it's just me. Great leaders were installed in Civ4 as something more though, as some kind of "great men of humanity" phenomenon... it changes the game dynamic instead of being some sort of exterior-add-on wich risks to be a gimmick.

Well speaking from the point of view of both an RTS and TBS lover, i wouldn't mind seeing Homeworld2 style tactical combat in a game like this, OBVIOUSLY with an auto-resolve option for those not so inclined. that way both sides are served. And ground combat for that matter. BUT obviously that would make it another game, not galciv2, so it's not like i'm expecting, or asking for that matter, for that in this game. I'm just saying a game like GalCiv2 with those features would be welcomed by me.

One of my favorite features from MOO2 was the tech tree -- each technology level you researched made you pick from three available technologies. After you made your decision, the only way to get the other two technologies was to trade for them or steal them.

The thing that really diappoints me is that you cant make purposals in the united planet council. Like in Moo3, even though that game sucked, i liked that feature. instead of one only being able to vote and not suggest new law/purposals for the council.
I miss that, but can see how it could be a maybe too powerful tool.

I like the idea of allowing an option for Tactical combat. people who do not want to use it would not and it would not require any change in AI strategy just allow the play more options.

I hate tactical battles. It makes the game draaaaag because the "auto-resolve" button makes you suck in every battle.

If the game would use statistics of past battles to determine what auto-resolve would do, that'd be fun. Otherwise, it's a fucking drag to fight every single battle, even with 10 to 1 odds.

Actually one thing I thought would add to the game would be overall strategic commands. Tell your ships to target a certain class first in battle, or spread evenly damage across all targets. Im amazed by the number of times I see the battle go badly as my ships wont try to take out thier largest ship first. Yes, it is ballanced as it works both ways but I see this being a simple thing to change.
Add in an option to target hulls in a certain order to allow you to go after a capital ship.
Also alow you to spread your damage out if your just going after hit and runs.
Perhaps a retreat option after 2 salvos?
Have all these preset that each fleet can do one of these options and it must be done before the battle like real life. I think it would add a bit to tactical level peopel want but not unballance the game.
It could even add a whole new line to the tech tree called tactics.

I absolutely hated the changes in research from Moo1 to Moo2. For the love of Zarquan, please don't include anything like it in GC.

I'm happy with GC2 as it stands.A game that is only strategic in nature, like CIV4.Moo1/2/3 are still around, go play it and enjoy.

Leave GC2 alone for strategic players.

does anyone remember the ability to creat planets out of chunks of asterouds in the solar system. That was SWEEET!!!

features of moo2 that would be nice in gc2.

1. Heroes/Leaders.


2. Detailed espianage

3. The music. GC2 has good music, and a lot more of it than MOO2, but I really liked that spacy/serene melody.

4. Elerians.

I would definately like to see the varied racial advantages /disadvantages from MOO II. If not the exact same set, more game changing Racial abilities.

What's the big deal about having the OPTION?? How is that such a bad thing? You wouldn't have to click auto-reserve ever time, there could be an "always use auto-resolve" checkbox in options. THINK people, it's not going to HURT you, it's just adding an OPTION. SHEEEESH

Because making a tactical combat module takes away massive resources that could improve the strategic side of the game,err like improved spying system,better A.I,ect..

Understand?

Player control of tactical battles is the one MoO2 feature I miss the most and is at the top of my wish list for future expansion packs. Half the fun of designing your own ships is being able to tailor them to your own combat style. But Brad sounds pretty stubborn about never including it so I'm not holding my breath. Too bad.

Putting tactical combat in multiplayer would be a mistake. It would slow down the game.

I absolutely hated the changes in research from Moo1 to Moo2. For the love of Zarquan, please don't include anything like it in GC.

My sentiment exactly. Compared to MoO the battles in MoO2 were horrific - actually compared to the first one the sequel was quit bad in most regards. The heroes were a nice touch though - the idea was entirely ripped off from 'Master of Magic' but a nice touch none the less.

i doubt you'll ever see user controlled ships in tactical battle.

don't take this the wrong way but in my experience people who liked the tactical battles in MOO 2 fall intwo two categories:

1) People who aren't very good at strategy games and therefore didn't realize that tactical battles in MOO 2 were essentially broken.

or

2) People who ARE good at strategy games, realized the tactical battles in MOO 2 were broken, and used its problems to exploit the AI so that it could win one-sided victories.