Tactical mode for spacebattles in GalCiv3

Will it be in GalCiv3?

By on November 14, 2013 5:21:14 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

FlyingAngel69

Join Date 04/2006
0

Tactical mode is the most interesting part of legendary "Master Of Orion 2" or such games like "Total War". Will be tactical mode for spacebattles in GalCiv3?

Locked Post 93 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 5:47:30 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

No, there won't be a mode where you control individual ships in combat. Stardock has already said that.

There might be a way to influence combat or give general orders to the fleet, they haven't said either way (as opposed to the passive observation of GalCiv 2). But this is not going to be Total War: Space. The focus of the game is on empire building first and combat second.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 6:22:09 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

No tactical combat means boring unimaginative weapon tech.GC2 combat will not fly in 2013.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 7:23:32 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Ashbery76,

No tactical combat means boring unimaginative weapon tech.GC2 combat will not fly in 2013.

There's no tactical combat in Endless Space, and it did alright. It just means the strategy layer has to be good enough to stand on its own, which it was in GC2.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 8:10:17 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Ashbery76,
No tactical combat means boring unimaginative weapon tech.

Full weapons options will still be available in GalCiv III - but only used via Fleet Actions, not individual combat.

 

GC2 combat will not fly in 2013.

No, it will not - that's why an enhanced version of GalCiv II combat is being made, however its still not full All-On tactical battles. The latter is not practical with the dozens to a couple of hundred planets on the GalCiv Map that will need to be taken. GalCiv is a Strategy Game not a Tactical shoot-em-up, the latter will never happen.

Brad has already stated that Full On detailed Tactical Battles will not be happening in GalCiv III - its a Strategic Game, not a Tactical shoot-em-up.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 10:43:09 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Tridus,

No, there won't be a mode where you control individual ships in combat. Stardock has already said that.

There might be a way to influence combat or give general orders to the fleet, they haven't said either way (as opposed to the passive observation of GalCiv 2). But this is not going to be Total War: Space. The focus of the game is on empire building first and combat second.

 
I'm this close to pre-ordering, thanks to your message. Can you indicate where such a statement has been made though (both about the absence of tactical combat and the presence of fleet actions)?

 

I think Endless Space has shown that the military aspect of a 4X can be good and deep while not featuring real tactical battles (although I would like something a liiittle more fleshed out, Disharmony's formations/targeting system was kind of a miss).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 11:04:11 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Werewindlefr,

I'm this close to pre-ordering, thanks to your message. Can you indicate where such a statement has been made though (both about the absence of tactical combat and the presence of fleet actions)?

I think Endless Space has shown that the military aspect of a 4X can be good and deep while not featuring real tactical battles (although I would like something a liiittle more fleshed out, Disharmony's formations/targeting system was kind of a miss).

Tactical combat being out is here: http://forums.galciv3.com/449479/page/2/#3411697

There's nothing confirmed about fleet actions being in, that's speculation based on some comments. Nothing official yet on just how combat is going to work aside from no tactical combat.

Disharmony was a miss in a lot of ways at release, they rushed it and it showed. Sadly.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 11:30:51 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Werewindlefr,
Can you indicate where such a statement has been made though (both about the absence of tactical combat and the presence of fleet actions)?

It has also been stated again in this interview:

 

"Strategy Informer: What do you think about Combat in Galactic Civilization? It was very hands off in the second game – are you planning on doing anything special with it for GalCiv III?

Brad Wardell: We don’t want to turn it into something like Masters of Orion, where you have like fleets of thousands of ships and you have to command every ship in the fleet and tell them what to do every turn because that would be... I know there are plenty of gamers who want that, but at some point that’s what your game becomes about. When it comes to games like this it’s always about what percentage of your time are you spending on what? In Galactic Civilizations, it is about your civilization. You are building fleets, designing ships, running planets, you are not telling which ship to fire at. That’s not what the game’s about.

At the same time, I always found it, in hindsight, the fleet battles in GalCiv II felt a little hollow. You design these ships, and you do all this cool stuff, and then you don’t really have any control over the battle. I don’t know about you but it always struck me as a bit of a missed opportunity, and that’s something we hope to make use of this time."

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 1:23:41 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Zydor,
GalCiv is a Strategy Game not a Tactical shoot-em-up, the latter will never happen.

 

Can you PLEASE stop referring to anything to do with tactical combat a "shoot-em-up". There are a plethora of things between these extremes.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 1:37:44 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Tridus,

Disharmony was a miss in a lot of ways at release, they rushed it and it showed. Sadly.

Thanks for indicating where such a comment has been made (and it restores my faith in the game, at least partly). As for Disharmony, it was especially disheartening because with a bit more work and the delivery of the depth promised in the dev diaries (special weapons, a much stronger targeting/formation system that interacts with battle cards...), it could have become a textbook case of *how* to make deep 4X combat without going into tedious tactical battles.

I hope Stardock tries to accomplish what Endless Space : Disharmony failed to do.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 1:58:46 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Some sort of carrier or carrier like device is hinted at in Brad's comment referenced by Tridus above.  Luckily, he also says something to the effect that it won't devolve into a tactical shoot 'em up.  I'm looking forward to seeing what's in there. 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 2:42:53 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Surge72,


Quoting Zydor, reply 4GalCiv is a Strategy Game not a Tactical shoot-em-up, the latter will never happen.

 

Can you PLEASE stop referring to anything to do with tactical combat a "shoot-em-up". There are a plethora of things between these extremes.

I dunno, the idea of Age of Wonders or Disgaea being a "shoot-em-up" makes me giggle.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 2:48:26 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Or, you know, MoO2.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 3:19:09 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

I'm hoping that tactical battles will not become a dominant feature in GalCiv 3. I've played games that mixed strategy and tactical features, and I didn't like them. I'm talking about games like Sword of the Stars and Rome: Total War. In some cases, you might play 3 tactical battles (maybe more) for every strategy turn you play. That gets real tiring real quick. More so if you were looking to play the strategy part of the game, not the tactical.

Thus far, from what I read, Stardock plans to make a good pure strategy game. The ship combat will get some improvements, but shouldn't eclipse the strategy aspect of the game.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 3:23:10 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Sword of the Stars 1 had decent tactical battles - some of the Total War series as well. But both games were heavily biased towards the tactical aspects of the game anyway. You can't have everything in a game (and if you try, it'll become a horrible tasteless blob), so it's better to focus on some aspects and refine them to near-perfection.

Frankly, after the Elemental series, I think Stardock has shown that they can do a much better game without tactical battles than with them. Frogboy's decision was the right one in my opinion.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 3:54:14 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Put this thread to rest already, if you want master of the Orion 4, then go make a new rip off series, otherwise you are wasting your time here on this forum. Your in your competitors territory and if you really want Master of the Orion 4, go rack up a few million dollars and buy out the license and hire people to make the game for you.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 4:02:25 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Ashbery76,

No tactical combat means boring unimaginative weapon tech.GC2 combat will not fly in 2013.

 

People don't want quality anymore, or to think a cm deeper then the nose reach? I forsee a dark future for us all if this is true.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 4:35:04 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting NorsemanViking,


Quoting Ashbery76, reply 2
No tactical combat means boring unimaginative weapon tech.GC2 combat will not fly in 2013.

 

People don't want quality anymore, or to think a cm deeper then the nose reach? I forsee a dark future for us all if this is true.

See reply #7 in this thread. It should be better than GC2, but that's about all anyone from SD has said. They love giving us pleasant surprises, so hang in there.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 4:53:04 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting NorsemanViking,
People don't want quality anymore, or to think a cm deeper then the nose reach? I forsee a dark future for us all if this is true.

I can think of fewer things more tedious than to find under the hood of all games, tedious Tactical Combat at every turn. Tactical Combat has its place, and is good fun when correctly implemented within the Game context.

It is tedious and boring to meet the tactical combat mantra of "Die you Swine" at every turn ...... there is life after Tactical Combat, withdrawal symptoms can be taxing, but its possible to break the simplistic urge, and subsequently reappear into an era of using our brains, not calloused, scared  trigger fingers co-ordinated by bulging eyes, clenched teeth and perspiring brows, as the bad guy makes a surprise attack up your unprotected rear end 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 5:03:32 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting NorsemanViking,
People don't want quality anymore, or to think a cm deeper then the nose reach? I forsee a dark future for us all if this is true.
Are you actively trying to make fallacy combos?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 6:42:40 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting DivineWrath,

I'm hoping that tactical battles will not become a dominant feature in GalCiv 3. I've played games that mixed strategy and tactical features, and I didn't like them. I'm talking about games like Sword of the Stars and Rome: Total War. In some cases, you might play 3 tactical battles (maybe more) for every strategy turn you play. That gets real tiring real quick. More so if you were looking to play the strategy part of the game, not the tactical.

Thus far, from what I read, Stardock plans to make a good pure strategy game. The ship combat will get some improvements, but shouldn't eclipse the strategy aspect of the game.

 

Total war games have an auto resolve button if do not want to fight a battle.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 8:49:24 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

No, it is not that people don't want quality, it is just that they want to stick to their series as much as you would want your enhanced tactical combat. I am suggesting that this game is designers choice, and for the most part the majority apparently doesn't know the difference between quality and shitty games anymore, just look at the popular radio stations, the popular games and the popular movies and the popular TV series. Not everyone gives a shit if they don't got the best of the best.

I am sorry, but right now when you got people give you Millions of $$$ you are convinced that you did a great job.

 

Considering that Master of the Orion did not survive the third release, I feel really bad for the quality loss, perhaps somebody will get angry enough and actually prove what quality is again, there will always be space games that have the potential to be good.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 9:10:41 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

While tactical battles are fun, when you have multiple battles going on in a turn and they all play out the same way it gets a bit tedious.  Not to mention if you are in multi-player and you have to wait for someone to finish up 4 tactical battles that take 5+ minutes each, it'll get tedious for everyone.

While I like GCII, I also felt the hands off tactical battles were a let down (and I very seldom bothered to watch the battles).  I'd like to give general orders to the fleet (close in, harass, evade, etc) at the start and maybe have an option to update the orders mid-way.  This would also allow different weapons to shine based on the order (beam weapons for close in actions, missiles for long range / harassing actions).

Yes I envision fast, beam armed ships with lots of missile defenses charging into an enemy fleet and proceeding to decimate it at point-blank range. 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 14, 2013 11:20:36 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting 18Zulukiller,
Total war games have an auto resolve button if do not want to fight a battle.

 

Auto resolve is *never* an option.

 

It basically falls into two categories: the auto resolve can fight a battle as well or better than the player, or the auto battle does worse than the player.

 

If the first is true, why would anyone play out a battle? The AI can do it as well as you can, you're just wasting time (and for multiplayer, wasting EVERYONE'S time). Sure, it might be fun the first few times as eye candy, but that's not enough to justify using the resources to make it. The majority of the player base won't use it, so why bother?

 

If the AI does worse than the player, the player is pretty much forced into playing out battles. Sure you can skip it, but when you lose half your fleet from being lazy you'll never skip one again. It's an illusion of choice, not a real option.

 

So which of those two cases do you want "optional" auto resolve to fall into? It's going to fall into one of them, regardless of anyone's intentions otherwise.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 15, 2013 2:37:53 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting GrayLord,

I'd like to give general orders to the fleet (close in, harass, evade, etc) at the start and maybe have an option to update the orders mid-way.  This would also allow different weapons to shine based on the order (beam weapons for close in actions, missiles for long range / harassing actions).

Yes I envision fast, beam armed ships with lots of missile defenses charging into an enemy fleet and proceeding to decimate it at point-blank range. 

 

Did you ever play Endless Space?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 15, 2013 2:52:20 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting WIllythemailboy,


Quoting 18Zulukiller, reply 20Total war games have an auto resolve button if do not want to fight a battle.

 

Auto resolve is *never* an option.

It basically falls into two categories: the auto resolve can fight a battle as well or better than the player, or the auto battle does worse than the player.
 

If the first is true, why would anyone play out a battle? The AI can do it as well as you can, you're just wasting time (and for multiplayer, wasting EVERYONE'S time). Sure, it might be fun the first few times as eye candy, but that's not enough to justify using the resources to make it. The majority of the player base won't use it, so why bother?
 

If the AI does worse than the player, the player is pretty much forced into playing out battles. Sure you can skip it, but when you lose half your fleet from being lazy you'll never skip one again. It's an illusion of choice, not a real option.


So which of those two cases do you want "optional" auto resolve to fall into? It's going to fall into one of them, regardless of anyone's intentions otherwise.
 

 

I think it depends on the game and how it's implemented. In ES for example, nearly unarmed scout ships or weak forces stumble across a superior fleet. Even a very scrappy AI couldn't screw this and I don't want to waste my time with it. So, auto resolve is a good thing there. I can spend my time in the more interesting battles.

Speaking of ES, auto resolve there isn't even completly AI based, because you can give your orders before the battle is resolved. The difference to non-auto-resolve: You skip the eye candy and you can't change your orders duiring the fight, so you can't react on the prcoess, You're stuck with your pre-battle orders, but for great disparity of the opponents, it's ok. So, auto resolve there is a good thing.

Whether it's good für GC3 remains to be seen.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000750   Page Render Time: