n

By on January 19, 2014 10:18:34 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

DARCA1213

Join Date 01/2014
+106

NONE

Locked Post 74 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 9:02:56 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

So basically turn this game from a strictly TBS game to one similar to the games that made Total War series. I would love that but it would mean that kind of a change. We will see if the devs thinks this is a good idea.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 9:54:19 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Ryat,

So basically turn this game from a strictly TBS game to one similar to the games that made Total War series. I would love that but it would mean that kind of a change. We will see if the devs thinks this is a good idea.

 

They won't....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 12:42:17 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Think of it this way: Making all games look alike would mean that when you got bored with one game, no game would appeal to you. This gives new meaning to the value of IDIC (from Spock of Star Trek: "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" -- or something very close to that).

 

Edit: Believe it or not, I found it. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/IDIC   It comes from Vulcan philosophy and goes back quite a ways in the back story.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 2:32:12 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

I preordered because they said this was a multiplayer turn based strategy game.  If it is not any of the following: multiplayer, turn based, or strategy game, I will be pissed.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 2:47:39 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Can it be added? Yes.

Will it be added? No. RTS is not a direction they've given any indication they want to move the franchise in. I don't doubt that Total War: Space could be a really good game, but it's a different game than what GalCiv 3 is going to be.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 3:08:17 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

If you want tactical combat then you might need to look at other games coming out.

 

After 2 years of patching: Sword of the Stars 2 is now playable and has RTS combat with TBS campaign

Star Lords is in beta and has TBS combat and campaign.

Horizon which is in Beta and has TBS combat and Campaign.

M.O.R.E Which is in alpha and has TBS combat and campaign.

Predestination which is in beta and has TBS for combat and campaign.

Star Control 3 pre-dev, though the engine its based on can simulate 10,000 ships fighting simultaneously.

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 3:28:11 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

I don't believe that they'll add real-time combat in GC3, but even if they did it wouldn't resemble total war or they'd have to devote a serious portion of the game towards it.  The comparison of Total War to strategy games isn't a reasonable one, because Total War is made first and foremost for the tactical combat; the strategy element is made to support that, rather than the other way around (otherwise who would play a game with spear militia or hobilars?).

The reason I don't think they would add that is because making a good interface is difficult.  From my perspective, although Empire at War was fun for a while, it suffered badly from having no particular focus (not to mention the real-time galactic map was painful to use).  They had to divide their attention into making the galactic conquest, ground combat, and space combat interesting in order to make it work.  What they ended up with was virtually no ship variety at all in space, and the ground combat was typically mediocre (although that's just my two cents).  Another important thing to note, is for real-time combat to work they'd need to make an AI specifically for those tactical battles.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 3:47:51 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Brad wardell: galactic civilizations 2 ultimate edition manual. Page 84.

And I quote. "For example, true tactical combat isn't in Galactic Civilizations II. I know people want it . Heck, I want it! But the question was, could we develop a computer AI that would effectively make use of it."

All am saying is it was vaguely mentioned in galciv2 it should be in galciv3 unless its a surprise by the awesome dev's.

To elaborate, the combat viewer where we watched combat on virtual plane, Could be used for the new RTC. Weapons would have different rates of fire. And the game could still be paused to look at what we're doing and be auto resolved when you don't want to go through the battle.

now think of this your minding your own business and the drengin want to see you on there dinner plate. Your out numbered a bit and their slightly better at hps weapons and defense. You would probably lose in the old system. But your human and with some strategy and positioning you might win.

this would be JUST AND OPTION FOR COMBAT.

(it's martin Luther king day and every one is afraid of change or speaking of it??? Lol)

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 6:00:02 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting DARCA1213,
Brad wardell: galactic civilizations 2 ultimate edition manual. Page 84.

Here is what he had to say about combat in a recent interview:

"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."

 

Quoting DARCA1213,
this would be JUST AND OPTION FOR COMBAT.

Every option takes time and money to implement. Time and money the devs could use to implement something everybody will use.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 6:07:31 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting DARCA1213,

Brad wardell: galactic civilizations 2 ultimate edition manual. Page 84.

And I quote. "For example, true tactical combat isn't in Galactic Civilizations II. I know people want it . Heck, I want it! But the question was, could we develop a computer AI that would effectively make use of it."

All am saying is it was vaguely mentioned in galciv2 it should be in galciv3 unless its a surprise by the awesome dev's.

To elaborate, the combat viewer where we watched combat on virtual plane, Could be used for the new RTC. Weapons would have different rates of fire. And the game could still be paused to look at what we're doing and be auto resolved when you don't want to go through the battle.

now think of this your minding your own business and the drengin want to see you on there dinner plate. Your out numbered a bit and their slightly better at hps weapons and defense. You would probably lose in the old system. But your human and with some strategy and positioning you might win.

They've said that combat in GC3 will be meatier than 2 in some way. We know so far there's more attributes that matter, and that fleet roles for ships are going to be a thing. They've also said there won't be MOO style "selecting ships and ordering them to fire on other ships". Take from that what you will, but I have never seen them say anything at all to suggest that RTS style combat is happening.

this would be JUST AND OPTION FOR COMBAT.

Ah yes, the ever popular "Just an option!" defense. The problem with that is what you're asking for is a huge outlay of developer resources. Doing it well will take significant time and money, and that will come from some other part of the game. For "just an option", is it really worth it? I don't think so.

(it's martin Luther king day and every one is afraid of change or speaking of it??? Lol)

Probably bored of it. Tactical combat is the subject that just keeps on coming back to life.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 9:38:11 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Ok it's not sounding like a popular idea with the community but don't exaggerate.

Gaunathor, really, THOUSANDS of ships, nobody could manage all that. And if something insane as that was in MOO then I am glad I never played it. Logistics would limit the amount of ships as normal.

Tridus, There is nothing that interesting about the old tactical viewer. When you see your custom ships moving around and blasting enemy vessels that's all the idea basically is, that's what I am trying to convey to you. It already exists I know a litle about programming and it would not be a monumental task to tweak it so we could move them in a plane. A feature like that which at the start of combat would ask you. do you want to do it the way original way ( and I actually like playing with it to. If you remember I started off saying "I love galciv") or do you want to start the battle personally would be a huge money maker. And would put it in two gameing categories when people searched for games. (that's how I found galciv and hearing great reviews about it.)

But if you want to say there would be problems with it find real ones like. Making the AI to make use of the feature. Or makeing weapons turn to fire on the enemies direction.

Let's be constructive with our comments we're a community we shouldn't hate but communicate. Lets start over and talk about making this possible.

Now I'll know if that last bit worked if my friend gaunathor doesn't correct me on something I said...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 9:47:59 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Inadvisable. The scale for this game is large enough as is. Take a look at some Armada 2526 (or some similar combination of numbers) and pay close attention to its RTS component. 4X strategies in space are limited by the fact that they are so "limitless". The scale is simply too grand to make a comfortable RTS component that meshes with the overall TBS feel of the game. Another example is SoaSE. That game was a 4X RTS. Unfortunately, it relied too much on only one of the "X"s: eXtermination. Diplomacy was limited. Exploration and expansion were decent enough, no problems there. The economic system worked within its constraints and culture was a quick ticket to victory if your opponent didn't rush it well enough. All in all, I still like the game and the way it plays (the battles could be a bit quicker though)... up to a point. After a while, the border lines are drawn between the surviving factions and a trench warfare scenario ensues. In other words, the game is too slow for the RTS format. The reverse is potentially true with RTS components in 4X TBS, the combat is too quick and you are not able to keep up with it. In that case it turns into a roll of the dice or better units win the battle regardless of any tactical input on the player's part. (I'm looking at you Rome Total War 2...) I like to cite Rome Total War (the first one, the best one, without expansions) as a good example of balance between the RTS and TBS components. You made strategic moves on one map and were given a time limit to finish your battles in the RTS maps. The units were balanced well and combat was fluid as well as decisive. If you made a tactically unsound move, you were punished for it by the AI more often than not. If you micromanaged your units well and made sound tactical judgement, you could crush entire armies with minimal casualties or at the very least force a Pyrrhic victory upon your opponent. You wanted to charge that pikeline with cavalry? Your funeral. You crushed their skirmishers with your cavalry while making sure to harass their cavalry so that they couldn't outflank you? Well done. The kind of work that is necessary to create such a fluid RTS component at this stage in development is not entirely impossible, though it is nonetheless ill-advised. The man hours necessary to create it are immense and will only take time away from working out the kinks in the TBS component, thus creating two incomplete gameplay components (once again looking at you Rome Total War 2).

 

I suppose that's my rant done.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 20, 2014 11:26:00 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Gaslov,

I preordered because they said this was a multiplayer turn based strategy game.  If it is not any of the following: multiplayer, turn based, or strategy game, I will be pissed.

Galciv 1 and 2 were both turn based strategy games and many StarDock employees have stated on several of these threads that that will continue to be the case. 1 & 2 were not multiplayer, but they have announced that GC3 will have multiplayer capability:

<quoted from the FAQ file>

Q: Is there multiplayer?
A: Yes, there is online multiplayer. Stay tuned for details, but we can at least confirm that some form of asynchronous play will be included so you don't have to get your friends to commit to playing for several hours in one sitting to complete a game.
</quote>
To find the FAQ file, go to the top of this page and click the "GAME" tab. Then click on the "FAQ" picture. Or use this link.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 12:54:09 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Galciv is the only game good enough to implement some form of RTC. All other games lack the 'civilization' aspect.

many say play something else if you want tac combat, well there are no others that have the quality in all non-combat aspects. With this game its chocolate and RTC is peanut butter and together they make a delicious buttercup of fun. That would be the first ever created.

if not now in another stardock product that's similar to galciv or and expansion like DA were the system changed.

It's so nice people from stardock actually read these post, and everyone is so nice compared to other sites I've been to.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 2:45:33 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

I guess you already answered my question. My question was are there any good real time stradeqy games out there. You said no only Galactic civilizations could do it. Instead of messing with a good turn based stradegy game you need to go out there and get them to fix the real time strategy.

They did turn Galactic civilizations into a real time strategy game in the Dark avatar days its called Sins of a solar empire, instead of turning a good turn based strategy game into real time strategy or real time combat why not take a previous game and fix it.

I noticed that both Distant worlds and endless space are limited games. Eventually it takes 20 minutes to do one turn. I really would like to cut that time down instead of making it a lot longer without limiting the game.

I might would like to see turn based tactics. Personally I would like to see the combat screen like Endless space without the cards.

I wouldn't want to buy Galactic civilizations 3 and then realize it is none thing like the game.

I don't understand that with all those real time stradegy games why no one is fixing those instead of trying to change a good turn based strategy game. Stardock even has one it is Sins of a solar empire. Give them what they want and make it better to not just Galactic civilizations 3.

You have to admit this is trying to compromise because you want a tactical game.

Honestly I don't know if this is better. I would think turn based tactics is better than real time strategy. As long as it doesn't take longer than what it is without taking away from the already flexibility.

My question is how come they cant change the already existing Rts games like Soase. What is it they don't have that Galactic civilizations have. To be honest the thing a bout Rts is that you have to simplify other things so it is playable, so instead of changing Galactic civilizations change Sins of a solar empire. So how about listing how Soase could be better instead.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 4:04:23 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

What, 17 pages were not enough?! Can't we just freaking wait a bit more for more details from the devs?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 6:34:59 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting DARCA1213,

Ok it's not sounding like a popular idea with the community but don't exaggerate.

The real problem is that Stardock already knows what they're building. Given that the alpha could come out in a month, they may have already started building it. So it really doesn't matter if its popular in the community or not. If what they're building is not RTS combat, they are extremely unlikely to throw out what they are building and replace it with RTS because of a forum thread.

Gaunathor, really, THOUSANDS of ships, nobody could manage all that. And if something insane as that was in MOO then I am glad I never played it. Logistics would limit the amount of ships as normal.

Tridus, There is nothing that interesting about the old tactical viewer. When you see your custom ships moving around and blasting enemy vessels that's all the idea basically is, that's what I am trying to convey to you. It already exists I know a litle about programming and it would not be a monumental task to tweak it so we could move them in a plane. A feature like that which at the start of combat would ask you. do you want to do it the way original way ( and I actually like playing with it to. If you remember I started off saying "I love galciv") or do you want to start the battle personally would be a huge money maker. And would put it in two gameing categories when people searched for games. (that's how I found galciv and hearing great reviews about it.)

You're wrong. Creating a half decent RTS ship battle system in the game is a big deal. Sure they could just throw something simple together, but that just changes the problem from no combat control to lousy combat control (which really isn't any better).

But if you want to say there would be problems with it find real ones like. Making the AI to make use of the feature. Or makeing weapons turn to fire on the enemies direction.

Both of those things are only problems if there isn't time to do them right. aka: Cost. When it comes to new software development, the budget is a very real problem.

Let's be constructive with our comments we're a community we shouldn't hate but communicate. Lets start over and talk about making this possible.

Now I'll know if that last bit worked if my friend gaunathor doesn't correct me on something I said...

The whole point I'm trying to make is that it's far too late in the process for it to be possible. Either it's what they planned to do already and it's going to happen, or they're planning some other model and it's not happening. You will not be able to change that this far into the process.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 6:42:32 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting DARCA1213,
Gaunathor, really, THOUSANDS of ships, nobody could manage all that.

I was just quoting what Frogboy said.

Quoting DARCA1213,
Let's be constructive with our comments we're a community we shouldn't hate but communicate. Lets start over and talk about making this possible.

We had several threads about tactical combat (both real-time and turn-based) already. Like this one, and this, and this, and this. It's been talked to death. Heck, it has been talked to death when GalCiv 2 first came out. The sooner you realise, that there won't be tactical combat in GalCiv, the better.

Combat in GalCiv 3 will be more complex, the devs said so before, but it will remain hands-off. You can read a little about it here and here, plus listen to it in this podcast (starts at about 43:30 min).

Quoting DARCA1213,
Now I'll know if that last bit worked if my friend gaunathor doesn't correct me on something I said...

I didn't know helping you with a modding-problem would make me your friend.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 3:28:51 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

activate meditation mode...getting calmer...calmer...logical...passionate with a cause...ready to talk.

I know it's probably not going to happen in galciv3 and as I stated in the OP. It's just possible. That's all. I bought galciv because heard it was better not SoaSE or MOO witch poeple seem to not like at newer versions. I feel this game could do it right. Given the time.

yes this is a issues that's not dieing because its wanted by players. Am truly happy stardock said there going to make combat different but I have no idea what's between Dice and RTC? This game needs the normal combat and some form of tactical. Keep in mind my life code is sovereignty and balance I don't want to turn this into RTS vs TBS I just want to see a better game. They should both exist in a later galciv title/expansion, or start making it now if they are as good as I believe.

WE ARE HUMANS and should be THINKING in strategy games. Especially on something that requires THINKING like combat. (combat is a part of strategy) witch would need to be different to keep things interesting what's the point in making custom ships if you can't really control them in a fight.(and you might as well since you rule the planets and people with a iron fist) If anyone can tell me a game that exists that's set in space, is great at all the 4Xs (like galciv) and has real time combat then let me know so I can buy it.

I know your quoting him now before I  didn't click on the link till later...s..so...sxfd.... Sorr...sorry there I said it.

I am curious gaunathor, tridus, if there was ANY form of tactical combat would you use it?

although you said it yourself that your "not people person to put it mildly" and "English isn't your first language" and your probably not it the states based on time you post your replies, and I've never met you, and have a bit to much time on your hands. We are as close as friends can be on the internet gaunathor. Were just a computer screen apart.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 4:45:14 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting DARCA1213,
I am curious gaunathor, tridus, if there was ANY form of tactical combat would you use it?

In GalCiv? Never! I play GalCiv when I don't want to have to deal with tactical combat. If I'm in the mood for it, then I play a game that actually focuses on it, like SotS 1, MoO 1 and 2, JA 2, AoW:SM, or Eador.

To put it simple, I like tactical combat, but I don't want it in every game. Especially not, if adding it would completely change the focus of the game. This would be the case in GalCiv. Currently, the main focus in the series is to build up your civilisation. Combat is a part of this, yes, but it was never a major focus. Nor was it meant to be.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 4:51:36 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting Gaunathor,
Especially not, if adding it would completely change the focus of the game. This would be the case in GalCiv.

Actually, Gaunathor, I think you are selling the GC devs short when you say this. I believe they could indeed add tactical combat to GC without changing the game's focus. I have great faith in Brad's ability to see to it that the main focus of the game remains, regardless of what features get added.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 5:13:44 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Since players like you gaunathor like the original way.( it might one day be called auto resolve) to be fair both should be implemented.

Now I was holding on to this little rhyme if you started to irritate me which you are not, but why let it go to waste. Right?

 

Gaunathor quoting people all the time.

Made DARCA lose his mind.

I know you think it's funny. Lol.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 21, 2014 6:31:05 PM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Quoting DARCA1213,


I am curious gaunathor, tridus, if there was ANY form of tactical combat would you use it.

Depends. I use it in Age of Wonders 2 all the time, but that is turn based and does an interesting job with terrain obstacles, line of sight, and things like city walls. 

If the pacing is good and there is interfering things for me to do? Yeah, I will use it. If it's tedious? Nah. 

That doesn't mean I expect to see Starcraft inside GalCiv.

 

we do know there is a ship role system coming, so hopefully there are some interesting thints up their sleeve. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 23, 2014 1:28:14 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

Speaking of thousands of ships - isn't that's why we have chain of command? Division commander does not excersize direct command over each of 10000 troops in his division, probably he doesn't even know all of them, and even all officers. He commands his division as a whole, he has his own "chief of staff", who designs attack plans and keep close communication with supporting units commanders, to know how much fuel, spare parts, ammunition, food, water, medicine, clothing, tools, armament, any other required supply they have. Also he (chief of staff) communicates with different form of reconnaissance units - be that engineers, radio/tech, air, NBC, meteo - simply to know where they could go. You can compare commander with composer, while chief of staff with conductor, if you want. Anyway, there are several regiments in division, and divisional commander and chief of staff will communicate with them. Regimental commanders in turn with lead their regiments, and will communicate with battalions' commanders, who, in turn, will communicate with companies commanders.

So in each moment each commander had to communicate with 3-5 people, that's usually within human hardware throughput, when it comes to processing information. In terms of gameplay, this could look like Hears of Iron, or, if you like. Sid Meier's Gettysburg - we had units of various size, but we had no control over individual soldiers or tanks.

Do I want to see that kind of combat control in GC? No, I'd prefer to have no combat at all - there is military chief, it's his job. All you had to do is tell him how you want to prepare your army, and he'll tell you what budget you need to allocate. Should you plan invasion - again, he'll give you details and you pick those you want to be completed - thorough reconnoissanse, or brief one, induct blockade and long siege, or swift, massive attack, or partisan actions. Not even sure you need to give him advices how to attack - I'd say that should be his job, to act accordingly to existing armed forces and budget.

In the same time, I don't mind GC "spin-offs", dedicated to lower level of command, where we could don admiral's hat and command our glorious fleet from our flagship "pwner". Even lower level of command-game, natural tactical level, Nexus scale, or, I don't know, Blitzkrieg - something within captain/company level of responsibility would be nice, maximum up to colonel/regimental levels. But not in GC. That's the game of different scale - it's galactic civilizations, not borough civilizations.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 23, 2014 1:43:35 AM from Galactic Civilizations III Forums Galactic Civilizations III Forums

In the same time, I don't mind GC "spin-offs", dedicated to lower level of command, where we could don admiral's hat and command our glorious fleet from our flagship "pwner". Even lower level of command-game, natural tactical level, Nexus scale, or, I don't know, Blitzkrieg - something within captain/company level of responsibility would be nice, maximum up to colonel/regimental levels. But not in GC. That's the game of different scale - it's galactic civilizations, not borough civilizations.

That is a pretty interesting idea. A campaign from the point of view of the bottom up, rather than the top down. A strictly combat game where you start as a single ship commander and move up to fleet commands of increasing size. You might be able to design the ships you use for each mission within certain tech and money constraints. No empire building or diplomacy, just design the ship and go beat down aliens with it. Real time may not work, but "full" turn based tactical combat would be the main focus of the game. It's obviously not something to include in GC3, but as a standalone parallel game it's an interesting concept.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0002953   Page Render Time: