I hope so too, I am pretty happy with where the previous games have sat in terms of combat systems, extra 'glitz' is indeed always appreciated but I think how the combat plays is a core part of the games identity as a whole. I don't think I would want it messed with too much...

When it comes down to it...if I want more tactical combat options I would play Sins, it is not what I really come to Gal Civ for.

This one (GalCiv TBS/RTS) usually goes round in circles - been that way for years, and in that regard I guess things will never change.

But I will  say one final thing, anyone who believes a Games House is going to suddenly do a 180 degree turn after already investing in the Core TBS Code via a V1 and a V2, and flippantly change it to RTS ..... sorry, but they live in a fantasy world so far from Commercial Reality, you might as well declare personal piggy-banks are going to replace Fort Knox - its not happening.

Prior investment in the GalCiv Series is huge, there is no way they would change mid-stream to RTS, even if Brad wanted to - it would be financial suicide.

Hey - non ones perfect ..... *holds up hand* ...... but stark raving mad Brad is not.

And even more basically it's between non-interactive combat and some kind of way to influence combat outcomes aside from simply constructing units. I really don't want something like the GalCiv 2 combat viewer of Civilization-style combat, because it's simply not fun. Basically nothing happens. Pretty uncool.

I don't want a card-based system because that's stupid, but something should be done to enhance it in the realm of interactability. With giant fleets I don't really want tactical combat ala MoO2 because that wouldn't work so well with huge fleets (moving every ship individually - ugh!). But somewhere in between Gratuitous Space Battles' system (where you can give some basic commands at the start of the battle, but nothing while it occurs) and MoO2's system would be nice, probably more on the side of GSB. Maybe have the ability to recall fighters back to carriers, generally retreat, press the attack, etc while in combat - a little like X-COM: UFO Defense's air combat system, but expanded to handle dozens or hundreds of ships rather than a single fighter.

I wasn't going to weigh in on this, because I feel rather neutral about it, but, lets face it:

1) GalCiv is a strategy game. So is Moo2. The tactical combat is only a feature, not the end all of either game. GC2 had tactical combat, although it was more of an illusion because it was always more of an auto-resolve, perhaps one could say a pseudo-auto-resolve.

2) A master strategy plan has to include tactical actions. No real life strategy plan will survive without tactical plans designed to further the strategic master plan. We controlled that with the types, quality, and quantity of ships we built and sent in to do battle in either of the previous GalCivs. Since I am a bit of a control freak, I would have liked more control over the battles, as in being able to choose which ship did what when to which ship with which weapons.

3) I never did like auto-resolve. I always felt cheated. But I did understand that there were limitations to how much of a feature, or how many features, a programming team could include in a game (or any other kind of app).

I understand that there are different feelings and viewpoints on this topic, and I can respect them all. (I am more of a control freak when it comes to games, and I do not have the mental and physical speed and coordination for most Real Time games.) Obviously, it will be impossible to completely satisfy everyone, but I have to believe most everyone on these forums find the GalCiv series satisfying. I for one am quite confident that:

1) SD will try to incorporate as many of our ideas as they can as long as they fit within their core guidelines. The time planned for development and testing will also be a factor. Also don't forget that they are building the GC3 code from scratch. They have to if they want to use their new 64 bit engine. (I once altered an operating system feature from 24 bit addressing to 31 bit addressing when Virtual Addressing was introduced, and ended up replacing over 40% of the feature's original code, and increased its size by about 20%. And I didn't add a single sub-feature. To this day, I think I would have been better off with a total re-write.)

2) GC3 must remain, first and foremost a strategy game. Otherwise, it would loose its appeal to almost all of us (come on, now. Aren't we more cerebral than those that want nothing more than a shoot-em-up? Or an arcade game?) But strategy must be supported with good tactics.

3) Anything SD does about this idea will, most likely, include a toggle to turn it on or off, just as they did with the battle viewer in GC2.

4) What StarDock produces will be glorious.

5) We are better served by voicing our ideas and voicing expansions or variants of other peoples ideas, or expressing a detailed "no, because" only once, than getting involved in protracted arguments for and against an idea only because "I like it" or "i don't like it". After all, we are trying to convince SD, not each other.

6) If SD decides to take a good look at this idea, they will ask for comments before they start working on it.

Okay .... am I missing something here ..... how does this:

not clash with this .....

I'm probably going to regret asking .....  .... but there ya go .... its old age, it creeps up on us all in the end   

Zydor, I am beginning to think that much of this discussion is based on individual definitions of "tactics" or "tactical battles". With that in mind, I think that both Charon2112 and I are correct. GC2 did have very minimalistic tactical battles from my viewpoint (although at a totally auto-resolve level) and that GC2 didn't have any tactics from Charon2112's viewpoint.

Well said. But please remember that we individually are quite different people with differing wants and needs. As I said earlier, I am a control freak (perhaps I should have qualified that with "in certain ways"). The use of toggles to allow players a choice between "control" and "abstraction" was used well by GC2 for fleet battles, and in both previous versions for other features. I believe there is enough said in this thread to show that using a toggle to give both sides of this issue what (or at least some of what) we want is a good idea. That said, if they include tactical battles in GC3 (under a toggle) how much support for it will they be able to include (at least initially)? It is also possible that, while a tactical battle feature may not make the cut for the base release, it may make it in a later release. Also, if it makes it in the base release, it may be somewhat simple, then possibly expanded in later releases. SD has done this with other features in the past.

I remember in an old risk game you had to pick between different types of assaults / defense plans. You could have a similar mechanic where you must have minimum amount of certain types of ships to pick that assault plan / defense plan. (It would be like selecting from a set of office tactic/ defensive tactic cards for each battle). You could even require the player to research fleet tactics to get access to more options. Espionage points could be used to at this point to... (certain assault types would require espionage points, if spend X number espionage points of points you receive a chance view what the other player has selected, etc).

IE: Fighter Terror Star Assault Plan

requires 40 fighters, 3 destroyers, 1 cruiser, and 500 espionage points.

My comment about abstraction was not about the tactical combat in this case. I like the cinematic autobattles in GalCiv II (those are not tactical battles so not sure why they are mentioned as such? How can be tactical to watch a cinematic autoresolve?). That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy the option of real tactical combat (in the form of "Play the battle or autoresolve"). If GalCivIII is to have tactical combat, it better have it from the start and not in an addon. More time to polish it and keep in in balance with the rest of the game.

A game doesn't become less strategic because of tactical combat (fleet, troopers) and any system can be abused by humans. I don't need tactical battles to win most of mine anyway (if I can choose the moment... pirates, dread lords and such don't allow that). If devs (the same ones that made GalCiv and GalCivII) add tactical battles, these tactical abttles are as much GalCiv as the new multiplayer or the old civilizations.

I understand why some people think tactical battles would be a bad addition however I have to disagree. I think Stardock can develop a system that doesn't require tons of micromanagement, doesn't get too repetitive, doesn't give the players a huge advantage over the AI, and can be auto-resolved. To just leave any sort of control over ships out of the game is a huge drawback and totally unnecessary. For me having a say in how my fleets fight is a must. Watching them circle around like morons blasting each other is just so immersion breaking and banal. It's like having a earth based 4x where when armies fight a whole bunch of little men appear and run in little circles randomly shooting each other. I don't think I would bother leading a race quite so retarded.

As excited as my inner-child is by the mere idea of tactical space combat, I don't want to see it show up in Galactic Civilizations 3. I think being able to establish your fleet's stance (e.g., whether they're aggressive, defensive, passive, etc.) and the inclusion of a leader caste, who provide passive abilities and/or bonuses to fleets, could add some depth to the game, but I would much rather watch combat resolve itself with the tools I've given the game, then click through a mini-game every time I got into a battle.

So, I've been trying to stay out of this thread, because honestly I'm not really interested in a rational argument - my feelings on this topic are absolutely visceral and reflexive. There's nothing anyone can do to change them, and I'm not interested in changing anyone else's mind unless Stardock is debating this topic (which I doubt - they've quite possibly decided already). And if that is the case, I've made my opinion clear already.

But I keep seeing variations on these two points come up, and I have to object to them, because they're pretty much just flat-out wrong. As I said before, my objections to tactical combat are for GalCiv, not all space 4X games. I've played quite a few where it is a feature - some of them regularly - and one lesson I've learned from that is that anything beyond the most basic "fleet stances" sort of idea (which is not what I'm objecting to, although I don't really need them added either) will be a major, major part of the game. I don't know about "end-all" or "dominant" feature, but it's much more important in relation to the rest of the game than any single feature I can think of in GalCiv II.

As for a toggle feature? Sure, they can add it. But I'd literally bet money about them being able to balance so that a player who doesn't do tactical combat isn't handicapped by it, and that's not a lack of faith in Stardock speaking - no game I know of has ever been able to do this.

So from all my experience, you simply cannot add true tactical combat of the sort that some people are calling for to the game in a small or optional way. It will be extremely important, and those who don't want to do it will be set back by it at least some of the time.

In fact, this whole issue of options is the main reason why I'm against GalCiv having tactical combat in the first place - it's the only current space 4X game I can think of (though I'm admittedly a little out of touch) that doesn't have it in any form, which means that if I don't want to do the tactics thing any given day, it's the only option I have.