Medicine Man Medicine Man

Things you would like to see in a Galactic Civilization expansion set

▼

Things you would like to see in a Galactic Civilization expansion set

from Stardock Forums
I know that there already is one suggestion thread up but I decided to start a second one anyhow. Post any and all ideas that are too outlandish or broad in scope to implement in a commercial patch. Let's see if we can give the developers some evil ideas and maybe, just maybe, improve the chances that there will be a GC expansion pack. I'll try to get this one started.

Things I'd like to see implemented in an expansion:

1) More good and evil technologies
2) Race specific units, technologies and events
3) More events of all types
4) Morality triggered events
5) A new (hard) victory condition only attainable by neutral civilizations
6) Larger than gigantic maps
7) More customization options for maps (more neutral races, better than abundant planets, extra star clusters, more/less anomolies, etc.)
8) A second scenario
9) Two-tiered maps
10) A simple fleet combat system
11) More permenant galactic features (astroid belts, gas giants, ancient junkyards and ruins, etc.)
12) Some additional empire building tools (cosmetic and meaningful)

More technologies and events:
Any expansion to Galactic Civilizations would have to include more of what has already made this game the true, spiritual sucsessor to the Orion series. The event library in particular could be easily expanded to make every game unpredictable and different. Granted, this is already one of the stated goals of the patching process, but what can be done in patches can be 'overdone' in a retail release. :) Adding more technologies for the good and evil civs would also be a likely addition, but would require some compensation for neutrals.

Race specific technologies, units and events:
A familiar idea to an RTS player. An ideal way to introduce race-specific items into GC would be to create 1-3 units and techs for each race, including the humans, and then allowing each player to chose one of each at the start of a campaign. Only techs and units that the player picked at the start could be eventially researched and built.

Not allowing the usage of every racial unit in every game would be a good way to ensure that one race is not automatically 'the best' at any one thing. If the Torians chose their heavy combat vessel they will be able to hold their own against the Drengins. The best part is that the human player will not know what choices the AI races made until later in the game. Did the Drengins decide to activate their Warlord-class battleships (for space superiority) or did they instead chose to use Mutagen bombs (for mutating other species into Drengin hybrids during planetary assaults)?

Neutral victory condition:
Create a United League of Planets and conquer or dominate the galaxy. The catch: The League of Planets cannot have any of the other major races in it -- only minor races (and Independant League) led by the human race. You need at least 4-6 minor races (depending on map size) on-board to win this victory condition. They all must be alive at the end of the game.

It could work like this: Once a minor race is convinced to join the League it becomes an ally of the lead race and every other member race. All member races get military access, shared exploration, trade and diplomatic bonuses with one another. All member races benefit from each others starbases. All minor races belonging to the League give a tribute to the founder but recieve a hefty scientic grant in exchange. League races cannot culture bomb one another.

This would be a very cool victory path. It would be murder build and protect a League of Planets, but it could be a very rewarding endevor. If neutral technologies were to be implemented, perhaps they could be intended to allow this style of victory? The first neutral tech could be League Alliance (allowing member states) and subsequent techs could improve economic and scientic ties between the member races. A full formed League would be an unstable but very wealthy ediface.

Under the right circuimstances, the Arcean Empire may even attempt this. Perhaps one or more of their racial units/techs could be designed with this victory path in mind?

More ahead...
24,306 views 529 replies
Reply #501 from Stardock Forums Top
Thread is SO long that maybe this has been said. Still, it cannot be said enough:

The game desperately needs some sort of Tactical Ship-to-Ship Combat in ANY shape or form. Why? Because of the following:

We have some two dozen combat ship types to choose from but we never choose anything. All ships have the same function and the only difference between offensive ships and defenders/battle hammers and such is speed and range.

Simply put, there is absolutely no reason to build corvettes when battle cruisers become available and players are basically restricted to building ships with the highest damage and hit point ratings because to kill an enemy battle cruiser you need 10 star fighters and it takes longer to build 10 star fighters than 1 battle cruiser.

It may be too hard to animate tactical combat and give players complete control over individual ships, but it would be nice if two things were implemented for tactical combat purposes:

1. In addition to "Attack", "Defense", "Hitpoints", "Speed" and "Range" add another stat -- "Combat Speed". Ships travel at warp but they fight at impulse. Big ships are slower and less maneuverable. "Combat Speed" would refer to ships maneuverability in tactical combat. It is not enough for ships to be able to travel at warp for so many parsecs per turn. Once they get there they should have different combat ability based on their agility. This way fleet composition would become important and add tactical aspects to ship-to-ship encounters.

The way things are now is that there is no way 19 corvettes + a battle cruiser can kill a single dreadnaught. This is nonsense. They should be able to. (For example, Corvettes may not pack a hell of a punch but their agility and speed should allow them to avoid being hit too much and concentrate their fire on dreadnaught's engines if the dreadnaught has no fighter escort. The dreadnaught could be rendered immobile this way, at which point the battle cruiser could safely maneuver outside of the dreadnaught's main guns and kill it even if it takes a while.)

Point is that big ships would need escort ships and support fighters and this would require building balanced fleets of ships instead of building only dreadnaughts or whatever is the biggest ship available at a certain stage of the game. The composition of the fleet would be as important for scoring a decisive Ship-to-Ship Combat victory as the attack and hit points.

Again, even if I don't have battleships I should be able to build a viable fleet to counter them effectively with less powerful ships. This would make the game so much more interesting instead of watching the AI mindlessly send at you hundreds of their best ships, one ship at a time, in a never ending, continuous stream.

2. Ships engaged in Ship-to-Ship Combat should be able to attempt to retreat if it is not going well. Say, you see an enemy fleet, you check what ships it is composed of, you decide how best to counter it based on what's available to you, you send your fleet to intercept and if tactical combat is resolved in several steps you can see whether you are winning or losing and if it looks bad -- you can tell your surviving ships to retreat.
Reply #502 from Stardock Forums Top
The game desperately needs some sort of Tactical Ship-to-Ship Combat in ANY shape or form.
End of quote


I agree. I think this is probably the weakest part of the game. I haven't played MOO since before some of these guys were probably born ;) but I remember it had a very nice, but basic tactical combat system. I am just wondering if it isn't implemented here for copyright reasons.
[Message Edited]
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #503 from Stardock Forums Top
Too late probably, but:
Allow choosing to research a tech to change your alignment (e.g. researching death star should really make you evil).
Add something like alignment but different:
I'd like to be able to mod the game so that some research paths are incompatible. Right now you can go good vs. evil and one prevents the other, with the resulting techs.
I'd like to make it so if you research path A you become unable to research path B. Currently, I'd have to resort to alignment to do that, but I'd really want something different, so that each path A tech gives A points and enough A points allow you to discover the next tech, while B techs remove A points and few enough A points allow discovery of B techs.
e.g.
Have a tech tree of bigger ships (current military tree) incompatible with one which increases ship stats (attack/speed/shields) so you have to choose which way to go and cannot tread both paths once you've made your choice.
Reply #504 from Stardock Forums Top
The game desperately needs some sort of Tactical Ship-to-Ship Combat in ANY shape or form.
End of quote


I disagree. I don't want the game to be abusable as MOO (or MoM) was, and don't want it to last forever either.
Reply #505 from Stardock Forums Top
While this suggestion may be a little too late to be included in the x-pack, I hope it is good enough to be considered for future game updates.

I can see from great many posts that players agree: We want Bomber class of ships. Here is the rationale:

It is not always practical/feasible, nor does it always serve your interests to invade or blockade enemy star systems. Instead, it is often preferable to damage/destroy his infrastructure to make him less dangerous or force him to talk peace. While Terror Stars have the same ability, it is too extreme and available only very late in the game. Bombers (see details below) would greatly increase the number of strategic and tactical possibilities in the mid game and beyond. If implemented as described below, game balance should not be affected.

Description :

While guns are beam weapons and can be recharged, bombs are expended and their supplies have to be replenished by returning to a friendly planet to rearm. Entering the planet's orbit or merging with a fleet containing a Fleet Supply Ship (see below) automatically rearms the bomber. It is not necessary to "build" bombs like you do ships or Anti-Matter Missiles, but rearming costs a decent amount of BC and takes one turn + travel time. Bomber info includes "Bombs X of Y" in addition to "Moves X of Y". Each bomb (see below) is capable of destroying only one building with a few exceptions.

- Ship Class : Fighter-Bomber (battle cruiser class -- same stats as battle cruiser + bomb bays, looks differently from battle cruiser)

- Ship Cost : Same as Battleship or greater

- New Prerequisite Techs Required :
1. Bomb Bays (available for research after Interstellar Tactics has been researched)
2. Anti-matter Bomb (available after Bomb Bays have been researched)

- Future Upgrade Techs :

1. Miniaturization (Same idea as 1, 2, 3, 4D Phasing - meaning that at first the bomber can carry only one bomb and, hence, can destroy only one building on a planet before returning to a friendly planet to rearm. With further levels of Miniaturization the bomber can carry up to a maximum of 5 bombs - one more per level of miniaturization.) Great, unique structures, such as Galactic Monument or similar, take up to 5 bombs to destroy.

2. Fleet Supply Ship :

- Ship Class : Same stats as Transport, different look. Available between the Techs of Battleship or Dreadnaught.

- Description : Big ship capable of carrying 5 bombs + 5 more per each level of miniaturization (25 maximum). Cannot drop bombs, can only transfer them to bombers by merging with their fleet. Once all bombs are spent, needs to return to a planet to rearm. Fleet Supply Ship carries no offensive weapons.

Ship cost : Same as Dreadnaught or greater + cost of bombs each time it rearms.

- Future Upgrade Techs : Defensive Turrets (Ship defense +3)
Reply #506 from Stardock Forums Top

The game desperately needs some sort of Tactical Ship-to-Ship Combat in ANY shape or form.I disagree. I don't want the game to be abusable as MOO (or MoM) was, and don't want it to last forever either.
End of quote


Brother, there is always an option to resolve combat automatically, pretty much the way it is now. But many players would welcome the chance to win because they are smarter, not because their ships have more hit points or attack points.

Reply #507 from Stardock Forums Top
Brother, there is always an option to resolve combat automatically, pretty much the way it is now. But many players would welcome the chance to win because they are smarter, not because their ships have more hit points or attack points.
End of quote


That is what I don't want. See a dumb tactical ai. I know I'm smarter than an ai. Ever played auto in one of those games? You see so many tactical blunders that it's impossible to resist playing by hand, and I just don't want that.
Reply #508 from Stardock Forums Top

Question:

In the planet Details screen you can review what buildings have been built on the planet and how many BCs it costs to maintain each. If you click on, say, Manufacturing Center you get the option to "Cancel Project". What does this do? Does it destroy the building and if you want it back you have to build it again or does it turn the building off until you click on it again and (supposedly) choose "Resume Project" or something to this effect? Anyone know? Thanks.

Answer:

It destroys the building, and if you want it back you need to rebuild it.

Comment:

Thanks what a bad design decision... yet another one. Hey, I recall Caesar 3 (a very old game). There too it cost you to have industries operating primarily in that your limited workforce would be spread thin and understaffed industries would operate very inefficiently. But you had the option to turn a factory (or whatever) on or off thus redistributing your workers who would then look for work elsewhere. How simple and USEFUL is this?
Reply #509 from Stardock Forums Top
That is what I don't want. See a dumb tactical ai. I know I'm smarter than an ai. Ever played auto in one of those games? You see so many tactical blunders that it's impossible to resist playing by hand, and I just don't want that.
End of quote


No-no. Auto would be EXACTLY the way it is now. No change. You are happy with the way Ship-to-Ship is now. Right? Adding tactical would allow players to win where auto ALWAYS fails. This game is ALWAYS a catchup to the AI in the size and quantity of ships (until the very end of the game when you finally get the upper hand). Tactical would make thigs more bearable in the beginning, and in the mid game where you are ALWAYS infeior in every single way.
[Message Edited]
Reply #510 from Stardock Forums Top
I would like to see the following fixed to make sense:

I've had this happen too (a LOT): Working closely with MY spies Alexians or I-League (or whatever minor race) manages to steal all tech of a major race. Then they refuse to trade the techs for ANY price. This has happened to me at ANY stage in the game.

All techs may have different purposes but each has a "counterpart" in any field/level. Say, Battleship and Star Democracy are in different fields but at the same general level of research. On many occasions I have offered a minor races every single tech I had, including many of the same level as the tech they stole and I wanted to get, PLUS a decent planet and they still refused. Oh, and my diplomatic abilities in my games are always extremely high (and in the examples I am referring to I checked what diplomacy techs they DID NOT have compared to me. Not only I had exclusive Diplomatic Translators but also Xenomanipulation, Xenointimidation, etc., etc., which the minor did not have. So, I should have had some 60-90% negotiatinig advangtage. They still would not trade for anything. Just to see what it would take to get Dreadnaught from Alexians I once offered all trade goods [5 or 6] + all high level techs [more than a dozen] + several planets and a lot of my best ships + all my influence points and every penny I had in the treasury. They STILL would not trade...)

I say IT IS A BAD, BAD BUG (no, a design FLAW), just like many other stupid bugs/flaws in this game. What B U G S me is that they stole the tech "working closely with OUR spies". Shouldn't we share the techs acquired 50/50? Why the hell do THEY get ALL and want some insane things in exchange??

[Message Edited]
Reply #511 from Stardock Forums Top
I would like to see the following fixed to make sense:

Another BUG (or feature Ha-Ha!) or maybe a brilliant design decision, dunno which, so I post it here:

Solar system. Three planets in it. Two are class 20 and 24. Third one is class 18. The first two have morale of 100%. The third one has morale of 12%. I am out of money, I watch morale continue to drop. I am building, say Entertainment Net there but it is still a few turns from completion, I have 100% of planet income set to propaganda. Not enough. THEN THE WHOLE STAR SYSTEM (including the two planets with 100% morale) defects to I-League! WTF is this Sh#$& ??

[Message Edited]
Reply #512 from Stardock Forums Top
Diplomacy and Negotiations

Often an AI approaches the player and says "We are being slowly destroyed by XYZ. Is there anything you can do to help us". Here you have the opportunity to give them techs, ships, whatever.

Now you "Speak to.. XYZ" but you don't have the same option as described above. The only thing you can say is "We require that you give us ABC", but if you do so without offering a good trade (say you have nothing to trade or you would rather not trade something) they will either refuse or even say "Fine, but we will not forget your threats" and down grade their relationship with you.

Additionally, you often get "To aid you in your valiant struggle against XYZ we present to you some of our finest ships". Instead they should say ". . . we WOULD LIKE TO present to you some of our finest ships IF YOU WANT THEM". Say I am in dire straights and my economy is down while their "gifts" are almost always SO far away that they are a maintenance burden, nothing more.

Of course, I can immediately disband these gifts or give them away, but why is this "feature" there at all???

It would be 100 times better to simply have an option to ask for help and ask for specific things and have a reasonable chance of receiving such help/things from a friendly race.
Reply #513 from Stardock Forums Top
I would like to see Saintly Civs that make no sense fixed.

In every game I played, Altarians who are supposed to be saintly, declare wars on everyone left and right. Well, maybe something happened in the background which forced them to do so, but if I am allied with them they should tell me.

Instead of just informing the player that they are declaring a war on someone and demanding that the player join or else, Altarians should, for example, say: "The I-League has ruthlessly attacked us. As a result we are declaring a war on the I-League. As our ally, will you honor the alliance by joining us in this war . . " or something to that effect.

OR they could say: "ZYX has launched an unprovoked attack on our ally, the Torians. As their ally, we are obligated to join the war on the side of Torians. Will you honor your alliance with us by joining our cause?"

Otherwise it makes no sense when you see that kind and saintly guys declare a war and force you to join it since you are allied with them, ESPECIALLY if they declare a war on . . . Debians, for crying out loud. The poor chaps have one star system and one Corvette and these big good guys gang up on them for no rhyme or reason. Come on!
Reply #514 from Stardock Forums Top
What I would like best is an in game graphical tech tree. It's almost painful to handle tech in this game, especially with the way the scroll works. I've got things down in my mind up to about dread-tech, but beyond that I'm just researching whichever of my next options sounds good rather than having a clear goal of what I'm trying to reach down the road. Other than that I love this game!
Reply #515 from Stardock Forums Top
What I would like best is an in game graphical tech tree. It's almost painful to handle tech in this game, especially with the way the scroll works. I've got things down in my mind up to about dread-tech, but beyond that I'm just researching whichever of my next options sounds good rather than having a clear goal of what I'm trying to reach down the road. Other than that I love this game!
End of quote


Amen to that!
Reply #516 from Stardock Forums Top
One suggestion actually for this thread would be a separate brief listing of desired features stickied so people can see what has already been offered. Also a very short response since some such as waypoints are already in the beta expansion. Others have been answered in various other forums but are often difficult to locate. Any craz...um...dedicated volunteers for sorting through 21 pages of suggestions, gripes, rants, and random comments? :)
Reply #517 from Stardock Forums Top
I proposed such a project previously, Dark Hobbit, but there was few craz... dedicated volunteers, then. :)

~SDC~
Reply #519 from Stardock Forums Top
a launch to a rally point for a whole fleet of ships either right from the map or on the colony screen and a way to tell where they are on the map when assigning ships to them. Also naming then would be cool.
Reply #520 from Stardock Forums Top
A more dynamic and more complex economic system - not so much that the game is bogged down with unwanted statistics, but enough to give a prudent long term strategy a go...

1) Budgetary policy - taxes and all that are standard, but if we have a more fluid, dynamic economy, with just some simple variables like community spending, tax rebates, social services etc. could stimulate domestic growth.

2) Monetary policy - interest rates could be fun to toggle around with.

3) Foreign investment - investing in friendly allies and reaping the benefits of higher interest rates and a booming domestic economy

4) Internal trade - after all, cost advantage and all that...

A more complex, dynamic economic system could give a nice touch on strategy games - a facet that has been sadly missing from this genre for far too long. Every 4X game so far has seemed like a simulation of GOSPLAN and Soviet-style resource allocation. Unless of course, future humanity has relinquished their chains and embraced universal socialist brotherhood.

Oh...

And create a nice mix of ships - capital ships can not and should not be the be all and end all. Fighters, destroyers and support vessels play very big parts and lend to greater degrees of strategy.
Reply #521 from Stardock Forums Top
Survey ship "Auto Survey" command.

Problem:
The way it is now - it sux because for the good 40% of the game (or longer) you really have to keep a close eye on your USS Hero. If you don't it will eventually hit a wormhole and end up on the other end of the map unable to do anything but engage autopilot and travel to your space for 50 turns or longer thus depriving you of much needed bonuses from anomaly exploration (every little bit helps, especially in the beginning of the game).

Solution:
Add option to make survey ships PROMPT the player each time Auto Survey brings them to a wormhole (whether they should enter the wormhole or not).
Reply #522 from Stardock Forums Top
Suggestion on a new option for both Survey Ships and Scouts: Explore uncharted. This would force the to completely uncover one sector prior to advancing to the next. What would be even cooler is if you could specify a destination for the to work their way to while performing this function.
Reply #523 from Stardock Forums Top
When you conquer a system from an evil civ, you could have the possibility of covertly taking their intellectuals to your service. It was done after WW2 with nazi intellectuals :p

Perhaps there are other events that could happen when taking over a system:
- interrogate the leaders (just ask questions or... torture)
- else
Reply #524 from Stardock Forums Top
Tactical would make thigs more bearable in the beginning, and in the mid game where you are ALWAYS infeior in every single way.
End of quote


I want a strategic game, not a tactical one. I DO NOT want that because I would resort to this tactical option (knowing I can win by hand, I couldn't help use it). And I am NOT ALWAYS inferior in every single way. If you are inferior in every single way to the ai, then you have a big strategic problem, the game does not.

but why is this "feature" there at all???
End of quote
Sometimes, it does help. Plus putting your economy in the red might be their goal, after all. That's what humans do (give old ships to the ai to increase their maintenance fees while lowering ours).

Then they refuse to trade the techs for ANY price.
End of quote

Did you offer them a planet as it is suggested in the text? They may not give you ALL the techs at once, but you can get some of them. Don't ask for everything at once. Take some, trade some to other ai's, then get back to the minor and buy more. The only 'working closely' that's happening is that they contact your spies to tell them they have great stuff.

Now you "Speak to.. XYZ" but you don't have the same option as described above. The only thing you can say is "We require that you give us ABC", but if you do so without offering a good trade (say you have nothing to trade or you would rather not trade something) they will either refuse or even say "Fine, but we will not forget your threats" and down grade their relationship with you.
End of quote

Of course. What did you expect? You can't ask someone money or whatever for nothing just because you're a friend of someone they're at war with. This must not change.

If you don't it will eventually hit a wormhole and end up on the other end of the map
End of quote

Actually I'd like the autosurvey to specify which types of anomalies to choose (skipping new ships in the late game for instance). Also, I tend to switch science research to something expensive before the ship enters wormholes because it pays more. so alternately, precising confirmation before a certain type of anomaly is met would be a good thing.
Reply #525 from Stardock Forums Top
Hmm, don't know if anyone else would agree with me, but I skimmed this entire thread and didn't see the following mentioned...

i) Starbases should have populations, and it should be possible to invade and take over a star base with armed force. Of course, this would be very different from star system invasion, which would involve far more troops.

ii) Star system invasions should not be instantaneous. We are talking about wars involving bigger populations than we currently have on Earth. On both sides. The war should drag out for months, during which time both sides can ship in more troops. Hell a third party could also join in, either as an ally, or simply as a third side. During the duration of the war, all production in the star system should halt, and only be resumed when only one empires troops remain.

iii) I would like to be able to select various points and say somehow, "I need x constructors here", then when I launch a constructor, it automatically goes onto autopilot for the nearest place I marked that needed one, that does yet have enough on their way. This feature I feel would remove some of the starbase micro management that can get a little tedious as especially on big maps I tend to forget/neglect starbases I built earlier in the game that really need upgrading. I may well have noticed it needed new modules, but by the time my next (nearby) constructor comes round I forget, or don't send enough.

Another way to do it would be to select certain target modules you want to build on a starbase, and then let it work out automatically how many you need to do it. For example, you could say that your target is BattlestationsIII, Satelite Waterpark and Basic Defence and it would work out how many more modules were required to reach these targets...

iv) Someone mentioned asteroid fields. I think these are a great idea, and what is more I think they should be created when a Terrorstar destroys a star system. Also, a recently destroyed star systems might leave behind various resources... (Heh heh heh, I can see it now, a new tactic where a group of constructors and a survey ship hover around a Terrorstar waiting to pounce... :HOT: )