RE: POLL Which feature in a GalCiv III would you want the most?

Well yes.. I thought the politics option meant more complex UP so I voted it. I think its safe to assume that people want more UP and complex diplomacy the most.

Advanced UP! Stuff like banning empires from it, suggesting a proposal to declare total economic embargo against someone, voting to be the head of UP, thus winning the game, forcing someone through sheer influence to help you kill someone or defend against someone, forcing empires to change alignment, creating a joint crusade against an empire or all the evil/good/neutral empires in the galaxy, or every empire that is not part of the UP, thus making the UP actually worth something! I would like that more than anything.

More advanced diplomacy is really great, too, but the diplomacy is great as it is, I have no idea what can they do to improve it even further.

Tactical battles? Meh I would just let the computer handle my battles for me like I do in every TBS game. You guys are just micromanagement fans. Try having a full war when you have to deal with a battle every 2 turns...I would quit the game in the middle out of exhaustion...

Try having a full war when you have to deal with a battle every 2 turns...I would quit the game in the middle out of exhaustion...

Two things. First, if you are in a late game war, you'll have much more than a battle every 2 turns. Second, I'm sure there will always be the option to turn off the tactical battles if you don't want to do them, or enable them only for certain battle types much like you can do with the cinematic battles currently.

Having tactical battles come out #1 in the poll was pretty shocking to me as well. Are these people serious? After the first few battles played out for the sake of novelty, I'd just start hitting the AUTO BATTLE button rather than bogging things down to such a micro-crawl.

Sir Arfs a Lot, I'm not against tactical battles. I'm against having Stardock spend time and resources on a feature I'll rarely use. But the people have spoken, I guess. I wouldn't MIND tactical battles, it's just that it's really over-rated. Especially since I see what happens in games like Total War where I either skip the battles altogether, or I play a few battles for half an hour and then quit. MOO2 was a pain in the ass in that aspect.

After the first few battles played out for the sake of novelty, I'd just start hitting the AUTO BATTLE button rather than bogging things down to such a micro-crawl.

Absolutely true. That is what I always do in SE4 too. Gormoth is right too about the PITA it was in MOO2. I think more complex diplomacy would be the best.

When I saw the Web poll yesterday I tried to create the following new post:

Tile: What is the Difference Between "more advanced diplomacy" and "more politics"?
Sub-Title: "Tactical battles" = More Game Micro-Management

What is the Difference Between "more advanced diplomacy" and "more politics"? I think they should be combined in which case this would be the #1 feature request with "Tactical battles" being a close second.

Having played games which include "Tactical battles" like Space Empires IV, I think Stardock made the right choice to leave it out. A good human player performs better than any AI in tactical battles. Including this feature will weaken the AI and increase the game micro-management as experienced players will feel to need to take control.

I'm still unable to create new threads, I can only post to existing threads! Is anyone else having this problem?

More random events maybe? And/or alignment dependent on common moves (use of gases, backstabs...)? Anyway, I chose diplomacy:

MOO3 had one aspect I liked and that was economic/other alliances with different degrees. Ok, I'm not crazy on 5 degrees of economic/cultural/etc alliances. But... it would be nice to have basic/normal/advanced alliances of different types (ie.economic, military, cultural, diplomatic).

I would like a SMAC/Civ4 style of government too though. Veeeeeeery much




LAST CHOICE: Micro-managing my battles.... oh no

Tatical battles is what I loved best about MOO2. The trick is to find a balance in the size of the battles. Bigger is not always better.

Hooray for tactical combat!

Yeah this is a tough one in that I want a more functional UN, but where did that fall in the voting? Tactical battles are nice, and some TB games do them well, but it's just not what GC is about for me. I won’t complain about getting it, but there are other facets of the game I would like to see evolve first. Currently the UN as is is just annoying to me so it takes top dog in the poll (but it wasn’t there). I'm kind of hoping that they redo the poll and be more specific. The thing is, Diplomacy and Politics are so closely tied that I don’t see why they would do 1 and not the other. And they have mentioned that with an expansion they will do several things, not just one. So maybe they will take the top 3 on the list. I’m sure they will let us know and ask for feed back. They’re good about that. So I’m not worried. We just have to let them know what we’re thinking.

What is the "HEROS" option in that list? I don't quite get that one...

personally I like several of the options in the listing..

I love customizing alot and the more random things can get the better at least for me.

Improved tactics and battles would be cool.

I find the idea of assorted Alliace types intriguing You can have a military alliance with someone and not lose your economic position with another. That would be cool.

The only thing that I would alter right now on the ship design would be the 3 circle areas. I would make turn them into rotational sliders for far more control and positioning.

I've always enjoyed MP games like BF1942 and BF2 and especially Blackhawk Down. But there are too many elements that I would want in GC for MP to implement. For instance I would love to be able to hop to a planet and take part in an invasion with the ground troops. Then be able to sit in a conference with the other MP's to determine whats allowed for a set period of time ( like starbase module limits etc.) ( can we say Fillabuster heheh ) I know that would never go over well in MP though. But what would be cool is a cockpit view and control of a fleet of ships in battle.
I would see the MP thing overall more like one of the MMORPG styled games. Where you actually choose careers etc. Have bar fights the entire nine yards. Consider something similar to Project Entropia with a GC spin on the entire thing.

I'm confused about the poll, it never gave me a chance to vote, I would have voted for 'more customization'. It was ust set when I logged in the day the pole came up. i wonder if it's possible for people to 'stuff the polls' so to speak, does everyone really want tactical battles so badly? I'm sortof fine the way they are, I mean, without new weapons and stuff tactical battles would be pretty stale anyways. I'd rather have more options elsewhere, and more tech.

I'de like to have a set of "Deform" buttons in the ship designer.
They would be similar to the rotate and scale buttons.
There would be three toggleable (x, y, z) sliders.
That way, each part could be stretched and squished.

Another thing that would be cool is some sort of invisible bounding box for the model, so we could have moving parts that wouldn't mess up the scale.

If you think about it, since the weapons have no range or firing arcs, the auto battles are played as efficiently as possible as is. They just attack the easiest to kill with the best weapons first. You couldn't do any better if you had control.

So they would need to completely redo the weapon/defense systems , and that would completely change the game, so I don't see tactical battles happening.

Don't you think that more advanced diplomacy and more politics are pretty much the same thing? You can't really have one without the other.

I guess I would have to disagree.

Diplomacy has to do with dealing with other nations, and politics has to do with dealing with your own nation. I can completly ignore diplomacy in GC2 and just deal with with my own nation, which I do in many games.

By looking at the results of the poll it's obvious that a great many people want tactical combat, and no, there's no practical way to " stuff the poll ".

I've said it before and I'll say it again, most of the choises from the poll would make Galciv2 more fun to play so I'd like to see Stardock consider them all. Since I voted for tac combat, that interests me most.

Gormoth1: your statement " I'm against having Stardock spend time and resources on a feature I'll rarely use " is found in the dictionary definitions of both immaturity and selfishness.

joeld1212, I didn't mean "I'll rarely use", I meant that mostly everyone will rarely use. Bah, actually, who cares what you think anyway, shut up...

It is really dumb to want tactical battles in GalCiv 2. There aren't many tactical options besides move and shoot! There aren't any special weapons, no special defenses, nothing. It'll basically be move, shoot, turn, move, shoot, turn. FUN!

Gormoth1: Your maturity level continues to drop. I see your last post was at 2:07 AM. Shouldn't your Mommy have tucked you into bed by now?

Again look at the poll. " mostly everyone will rarely use " indeed. The results clearly indicate that... your wrong!