Kanaric Kanaric

What tactical battles SHOULDNT be.

▼

What tactical battles SHOULDNT be.

from GalCiv2 Forums
I've played many games like this, probably all of them, and a few with tactical battles. I've played games with excellent tactical battles, this being Space Empires 4, and others with very poor battles like in Pax Imperia 2.


I dont think at all that they should use Real Time battles, if they plan on doing this. Its either going to be overly complex, like Homeworld, or its going to be JUST like the battles now. Right click an enemy, watch ships fight, etc. That is how it was in Pax Imperia, the battles are just like it is now except you choose what the ships attack first. It also shouldn't be like on the RTS space games like those Star Trek armada games or the ones simular to it. Right click, ships sit their and shoot until dead. Of course that is exactly like the Pax Imperia (or galciv 2 with right clicking) style except the ships dont move.


The combat needs something MORE for tactical battles. I'm not saying dont do RTS battles, it can be done right in a easy and quick way that is actually good. I think Empire at War gets close to it if the game were refined people would think more highly of it. Though I personally think the battles in GC2 should resemble more is a much more refined Nexus if they want to do RTS.


I personally would obviously like Turn Based battles. The game whose battles I enjoyed the most was Space Empires 4. Lots of ships with a huge variety of special abilities, various ship classes, large battles, lots of types of guns that do different things. If you take Galciv 2 the way it is now the battles would be incredibly boring. All ships being exactly the same, pretty much, all guns being the same besides doing different damage, no special abilities, etc.


It will need a lot more work then just adding battles otherwise its a waste of time.


I personally think that refining ground combat is something that needs more attention than tactical battles. I'm sure if that were put up on the list it would be been #1.
55,517 views 33 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think some interesting options could be added to the game without drastic changes. The major change would be allowing retreat. Also you could add a little rock paper siccors gussing, everyone likes that. You get to choose one option at the beginning of the fight and then watch it battle out.

The options would be:
1)Full Retreat - would be obviouly your ships all immediatly retreat and dont fire a shot. Your opponent gets one free volley on your ships.
2) Stategic retreat - Your ships try to retreat one at a time after they are damaged but just before they are destroyed. This is the "normal" method of fighting. Your enemys dont get any free shots on your retreating ships because your other ships are still a threat. Your last ship is going to get destroyed if you lose the battle, it has noone to cover its retreat.
3) Cautous retreat - Ships immediatly try to retreat if damaged, but otherwise like a stratigic retreat, this is useful aginst flanking or merciless tactics.
4) Full Attack - Your ships fight to the death.
5) Merciless - Like full attack but your ships also put themselves in extra danger in order to prevent stratigic retreating. If your opponent attepts a stratigic retreat, each time one of his ships retreats your ships still shoot one more volley at it, however your opponents remaining ships all get a bonus volley because you wasted time persuing a fleeing ship instead of engaging the remaining threats.

Specific orders: In adition to a general tactic you can also select ships and give them a specific tactic to attempt.
5) Flank - You select a number of ships to flank. These ships miss the first two rounds of combat but get an extra volley of shots on any retreating ships. Or if the non flankers are less dangerous then the non-flankers get a free volley on a retreating ship. (the enemy auto retreats the safest way it can from two groups to choose from)
6) Retreat - These ships attempt to immediatly retreat like a stratigic retreat.

Also at the end of a fight if the loser had some ships retreat the attack gets an option to persue. If he chooses to persue then he gets one volley of the retreated ships for ever movement point his attacking fleet still has. This is only an option if the attacker is also the winner.

So retreating really sucks if your opponent has a lot of movement points, but if you have a lot of defense it makes it a lot easier. and even if your still eventually destroyed you traded the chance to shot back in order to waste his movement points to kill you.
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I do not support tactical battles, In any given large game with >5 civs (including player) towards the end of the game there can be as many as 8 battles a turn!

What I would support however is an addition to what we currently have, Adding stuff like tactic settings would be OK so long as its unintrusive and does not affect balance.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
TACTICAL COMBAT IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN IN GALCIV II. (see below)

#23 by Frogboy [Stardock]
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:17 PM

Tactical combat won't be added to GalCiv II. The poll is with regards to a future sequel (ala a GalCiv III).

How many times does it have to be said? /rolleyes


Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Greetings,

If people dont want to use it they could turn it off. I dont think it will happen in GC2 anyway since its a major feature that would make GC2 into GC2.5.

Peace,
Star Dagger
Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If people dont want to use it they could turn it off. I dont think it will happen in GC2 anyway since its a major feature that would make GC2 into GC2.5.


Did you even read any of the posts? there is no think about it. GC2 just won't ever have it, for which I am glad.
Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I know you like to look for arguments, but do you really need to bite someones head off when they are essentially agreeing with you?
Reply #32 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I know you like to look for arguments, but do you really need to bite someones head off when they are essentially agreeing with you?


I wasn't looking for an argument there. I was merely confused about what he was saying, basically "well yeah, it has already been said..." and wondered if he'd skipped to the end of the page (meh, I do occasionally).

Sorry if it sounded aggresive
Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I am FOR more tactical elements in the game (that is, Gal Civ 3), HOWEVER, we need to think one aspect about tactical combats spreading at the 4 corners of a thousands light-years wide galaxy:

-How could a leader sitting in his office, managing the economy, social and military productions, can single-handely tacticely run every freakish battle? even G.A. Thrawn wasn't *that* good. He used subordonnates..

What a leader can choose, however, is which ships go for which battles. And that would be a nice element. You could design ships with specifics targets in mind. There would be a greater difference between Fighters and Dreadnought than mere logistic points!

A wing of custom-designed fighters (with heavy weaponry) attacking a Large Ship fitted with the latest SuperGun technology would have an easy time, since the SuperGun technology was created for maximized use against Huge Targets and Starbases.

However, if the Large Ship was, at first, designed to be a gunship (a LARGE gunship), and who has about 30 Laserturrets/micromissile launchers, the Bomber Wing would have a whole other challenge.

Create size-specific weaponry. Give another dimension to the rock/paper/cissor game.

It would allow an ever greater importance to the Intelligence. After all, before engaging the Drengin Fleet X2, you notice 3 frigates of class you never met before. With the proper intelligence, you notice they are befited with Mass Driver specificly designed to halt your own fleet. Even if you have a great Armor, you won't stand a chance against these babies.

Add "Size-Weapon" technology.