Tactical Combat? Did anyone say Tactical Combat?

its all a matter of choice really, init.

from GalCiv2 Forums
like a lot of people out there i have played moo2 and really liked it. (I failed one of my modules at uni because of Moo2, still don't regret it though). Galciv 2 on the other hand might well have cost me my degree!

This is a superior game to moo2 for a number of reasons which i'll go into, but i want to make this statement first:

"I think that having tactical combat included into the game would make GC2 possibly the best game ever made, ever. If included in the expansion I would willingly pay full game price for it." I have been reading a lot of statements made by people saying that this would be too difficult to include into the game, really guys come on, Frogboy and Posse built GC2 and they can do this, i know it.

Ohters have said that people like me should go back to Moo2 and all we want is a moo2 clone, you may be almost right, but could i really go back to Moo2 after playing "Galactic Civilisations II: Dread Lords". It'll be like watching re-runs of the A team. Amazing then, shallow and unsatisfying now. Does any one remember when Faceman sees the cylons and remarks "haven't we met before" Ahem..sorry.

Why GC2 beats Moo2

The depth of the game is truly fantastic. the attack defence system. massive techtree. building choices. Love it

Creating our own starships has got to be the one (then seeing em in action)

The AI kicks Moo2's AIs butt so much it may never sit down again.

It even looks and feels better, far more polished.

These are the main reasons that it is superior to moo2, there are others. Its a great game. Including a tactical combat "option" (the choice made before a battle, maybe) to keep both camps happy would make it a legendary game.

Thanks for listening.
51,237 views 67 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Dude, MoO2 is TEN YEARS OLD. Being superior to a ten year old game is hardly worth gushing over.

Tactical combat has been discussed to death so much that it's boring. You think making fun and fair tactical combat is easy, it is not. I could regularly beat the Antarans and being outnumbered 40 to 1 in MoO2. Tactical combat + custom ships = ouch time for the AI.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Dude, MoO2 is TEN YEARS OLD. Being superior to a ten year old game is hardly worth gushing over.

Ehhhh. I have not seen an FPS exceed Tribes' coolness, and that came out in '98. I've seen a couple come close to matching it, but that's all.

And yeah, tactical combat is an old, dead horse by now.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yes, it is been debated to death, so I have nothing more to say exept this: like FROOKIE I am also willing to pay full game price for tactical combat expansion.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Tactical combat doesn't have to be a dead horse if the thousands of Galciv2 players who want it would make their voices heard. The 5% of players who want multi-player have done a good job of communicating their wishes to the Stardock team. And the 2% of players who have the ability to make community-useable mods have been vocal enough to get Stardocks attention. Come on tactical combat fans [probably around 50% of Galciv2 purchasers] make some noise and get Stardocks attention and then maybe we'll get the expansion the silent majority wants!
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Come on tactical combat fans [probably around 50% of Galciv2 purchasers] make some noise and get Stardocks attention and then maybe we'll get the expansion the silent majority wants!


Better, Stardock should made a poll. Don't beleive for a second that more then 1.578654% would wan't tactical combat, since ultimately, I don't want it, so everyone else doesn't want it neither. (Or do I have first to have a influence victory here before you believe me? )
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If I wanted tactical combat, I'd play a tactical combat game. The AI is enough of a cream-puff as it is , I don't need to be able to beat the stuffing out of it in tactical mode too.

NO TO TACTICAL COMBAT!
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Most of the advances in the last 10 years have been purely cosmetic - Better graphics etc., i'm talking gameplay-wise .... mostly.

All I want is for it to be included as a choice, and seeing as its such a major change i am willing:
a: to pay full price for it
b: and also get bashed by people who disagree
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm willing to bet that a significantly larger number of people would like the option of tactical combat [with, of course the ability to auto resolve or watch the existing combat viewer] than the number of people who want multi-player [always a completely unsatisfying experience for me and anyone I've ever talked to] or the number of people who want easier/better tools for modding. The tactical combat fans just aren't getting their message out. Or is it that we're tired of getting ripped by the "no tak kombat klub"?
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You do have tactical combat. You have open space; it's not like games where you can only fly directly between stars, or only by "star lanes." How you coordinate your attacks, regroup, and counterattack is all very tactical. Admittedly its rather simple tactics, attacking first, regrouping, and avoiding counterattack, but it's there.

The depth of the game is truly fantastic. the attack defence system. massive techtree. building choices.

I thought the bland attack/defense system, limited tech tree, and simplistic ship design would make for a rather dull tactical combat unless they changed the whole tech tree, ship design, and fleet system.

The first game I played I missed a separate tactical combat mode, but after a couple of games I don't think it's needed, and too much of the game would have to change to make it interesting. A few options like retreating, designating priority targets, or capturing enemy ships would nice, but right now the combat system they've implemented is good enough.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I've been playing GC2 for only a couple of weeks now...

In a few ways -- tactical combat being one of them -- MOO2 is still a better game than GC2. Overall though, GC2 is the better game. I'd love for the expansion to include tactical combat. The game just doesn't feel complete without it.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
to Blucher: "The game just doesn't feel complete without it". I agree. The game is great as is, but would be nicely enhanced with a tactical combat option. to the "no tak Kombat Klub": Please check last sentence. It ends with the word "option". Just like multi-player option or mods option.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Seems like the horse i've been flogging aint so dead after all...


I thought the bland attack/defense system, limited tech tree, and simplistic ship design would make for a rather dull tactical combat unless they changed the whole tech tree, ship design, and fleet system.


Surely not the whole techtree?

You make a surprisingly good case for tactical combat BladeVenom, but good enough is never ever good enough.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Seems like the horse i've been flogging aint so dead after all...


Well, it is dead in that aspect, that the arguments are always the same on both sides and nothing new comes out of this discussions. But this doesn't stop us from doing it, of course.


Btw. speaking of tactical combat, I really think Civ IV is also missing it. Imho Civ IV isn't complete without mortal combat style tactical combat between spearmen and tanks (spearmen for teh win!1!11) )


Btw. those comparisons to MoO2 really get old, don't they? Would like to hear something new once in a while.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If the game would be ruined by adding the "option" of tactical combat then surely adding the "options" of multi-player and mods would ruin it as well.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If the game would be ruined by adding the "option" of tactical combat then surely adding the "options" of multi-player ... would ruin it as well.


Which is the reason why there won't be any multiplayer.


Hah, got you!
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Ah yes, this topic again. I am against it completely. Before the release, I didn't want one second of the dev's time taken away from the developement of the AI. I still feel that tactical combat is too easy for a human player. And even including it as an option takes away so much developer time and resources. However, due to the fact that the game is so obsurdly easy I guess it wouldn't make much of a difference if tactical combat was included or not. I wouldn't feel bad about letting the computer auto resolve my battles, because as it stands I would be virtually guranteed to win on the strategic map anyway.

I still hold out hope that 1.1 will address some of the AI's weaknesses. If not, then the argument against tactical combat is stupid IMO.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Many people want stuff to be added to the game. What they fail to realise is that by adding something, you will have to remove at least one other thing. Like most innocents, the simplicity of the game being a likely first victim. I don’t ever want to check planets for fuel status ever again. Ever.
It’s just not fun.

Also, by introducing more the learning curve gets steeper still. After reading a few posts here on the forums, I can only assume that most of us are strategy buffs anyway, but I don’t think that the game would be better of being more complicated just for the sake of micro management.
This is because:
a) There is other games, like Moo3 for instance, that you can play if you like those things.
b) New players are likely to ignore the entire genre if you can’t make a simple task, like building a ship, without first understanding the under laying mechanisms of something seemingly completely different. It simply gets too complicated to appeal to most people.
c) The “quiet majority” is more likely a vocal minority, I honestly don’t see fiscal sense in making a blinged up game that very few people would actually play for an extended period of time.

I’m sure there are other reasons as well, just as there probably are counter reasons. Naturally it’s up to everyone to feel as they please about the whole thing, but I’m opposed to the entire idea mainly because I like the relative simplicity of the game as it is.

I also like to add that You can’t compare strategic combat with moddability and network play. It’s like comparing apples and chickens. Modding for instance, adds gameplay and generates replay value to a product without much added effort from the developers. Same could be said to some extent to network play, while tactical combat seriously alters the entire balance of the game (to say nothing about the added development time).

BTW, sorry if You’re feeling bashed, but it’s not bashing until it gets personal, and were really just in disagreement.


Rygel XVI - Dominar to over 600 billion (more or less) loyal subjects.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
to Rygel XVI: I appreciate the mature nature of your post and the conclusions it contains. let me repond: a] Moo3 was a very poor game IMO. Inevitably posters bring up its predecessor Moo2 when discussing Galciv2 and hopes for future expansions and improvements. Moo2 is a ten year old game so there hasn't been much worth playing for quite awhile. I did play the bejesus out of Birth of the Federation when it came out but that was seven years ago. BTW both Moo2 and BotF have tactical combat. Maybe that's why I liked them so much. b] The tactical combat in both the previously mentioned games was pretty simple. I believe the Stardock team could develop a tactical engine as good as either of those without batting an eye. I don't believe having the "option" of what formation to put your ships in or what enemy ships to shoot at would complicate things for many people. c] I remain convinced that there are large numbers of Galciv2 purchasers [many thousands] that would be interested in purchasing a tactical combat expansion. The tens of thousands of dollars such an expansion would make would justify the devs efforts. As for your other points, I agree that modding [which I plan to use when v1.1 is ready] and multi-player [which I won't use if it's ever offered] does add gameplay and generates replay value, but so would tactical combat. I also don't see how this would "seriously alter the entire balance of the game". It didn't in the afore mentioned games IMO. In closing, I'd like to thank the various posters on this thread. Even though there obviously are different opinions on this subject, for the most part, everyone remained polite. That's a refreshing change!
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If included in the expansion I would willingly pay full game price for it.


As you should, because it would be a completely different game at that point. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a new game from Stardock that focuses on tactical stuff. Not necessarily something with the GalCiv name on it, though.
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Brad has occassionally let slip about an idea I've heard called "Galactic Federations" that is basically a real-time strategy game. I'd play it, but I would absolutely NOT buy an expansion -- or even download a FREE one -- that added tactical combat to GalCiv2 [I'd actually buy a Multiplayer one, by contrast]. I'm the Emperor! The Supreme Admiral! Not the Captains and Commodores. Leave the actual engagements to the Kirks and Picards of my civilization.

Basically, GalCiv2 is not a war game. War is already a decently sized part of it, and adding tactical combat will add far too much emphasis to that particular road, in my humble opinion.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'd like the option of being both the Emperor and the Kirk of my civilization. I disagree with the opinion that Galciv2 is not a war game . In 95% of my games another civilization [or two or three] declare war on me and I spend the rest of the game fighting them off. In the remaining 5% I declare war on somebody. What fun! Only thing that would make it better? Being able to control how my ships fight the enemy .... with tactical combat.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As is apparent throughout the forum, particularly in this thread, most people don’t want a change of the game to the extent suggested by tactical combat lobbyists.
I totally agree that it would be nice to chose witch enemy ship to target, but I don’t agree that it would make a better game.
GC2 is a pig, and pigs don’t fly (well they do if You ‘modify’ them, but that’s cheating).
Or, like Lucian so elegantly put it:
Basically, GalCiv2 is not a war game. War is already a decently sized part of it, and adding tactical combat will add far too much emphasis to that particular road, in my humble opinion.


Adding tactical combat worth using, even on the simple level suggested above, is a massive undertaking programming wise. Remember: Your tactics have to be countered by the AI, and that’s the part that is difficult in all of this. There is a reason why there is so few (if any) tactical combat turn based game out there that people like. If you are really anxious to play some tactical combat, I can recommend Act of War (not turn based, though). Just go to the starforce homepage, they usually provides links to software, or so I’m told

The reason I bring up AoW is to emphasise the amount of time needed to make a decent AI. Those types of games is typically built up around the AI, and even those games get bad reviews for the lack of skill the AI have.
In another post someone said that in GC/MOO2 (can’t remember witch one) he routinely won battles against the AI when the odds were 40 – 2. Even if this is a exaggeration (we all love a good fishing story ), the point is quite clear.
Computers aren’t any good with tactics, it’s the number crunching they kick you with.
I hope this example will help You see why this would "seriously alter the entire balance of the game".


Rygel XVI - Dominar to over 600 billion (more or less) loyal subjects.
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I love Moo2 as mucha s the next guy, but you think the tactical combat was good in that game? I guess you never really played that game. Crap like shooting all your missles and retreating while one tiny ship with max speed outruns the AI ships thill all the missles hit hardly seems like good tactical combat. And it wasnt till like the 3rd patch that the player didn't get to go first every time. A player having to go first every time?! WTF IS THAT? How about you just put an i win button next to the turn button. Or what about hitting wait, than moving twice back to back so you totally close the distance between your side and theirs without the opponent havign a chance to fire you unload missles at 0 range!

With that kind of experience in "tactical" combat I doubt tactical combat will make this game better. But whatever, let me copy paste my reply and wait for tomorrow's tactical combat thread. Save myself some typing.
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
"But whatever, let me copy paste my reply and wait for tomorrow's tactical combat thread. Save myself some typing." This is the kind of drivel I expect from a member of the "no tak Kombat Klub". At least Rygel XVI presents an intelligent argument supporting his opinion, even though I don't agree with it. I will contiue to hope, along with many others, that someday Stardock will develop an expansion that includes the "option" of tactical combat.