More action planet-side

This seems a disguised form of request for tactical combat which has been done to death in other forum posts.  I would suggest seileach that you trawl through the forum posts, however the end result seems that Tactical Combat is going to be minimal to preserve the game's Turn Based Strategy primacy.

Sorry but although your suggestion has some initial appeal, it will eventually lead to too much micro-management with GC3's extended scope for large maps, multitudes of races and multiple race-customized tech-treees.

 

Agree with Schaefspeare. This would lead into a mini tacical game. This is something that you all can mod LATER after we launch but really it would only make more micro management of the game which is already has enough of. Really a planetary invasion viewer would be fine with me.

Sounds more like treating each planet as a separate Civilization map.

 

Ahhh...I think I don't know.

I think you always just want the Last Word DARCA1213, however meaningless your comment[s].

And  I think that CaptainYar hit the nail on the head, that it would require each planet to have a Firaxis-type Civilization map; and that would lead to too much micro-management however small such maps could be, although I still think the GC2 planetary Combat viewer was a weakness of the game.

Thanks for the support Larsenex.

1. I might start using this front now.

2. Just call me DARCA.

3. I was honest, I don't know how to feel about this as its hard to imagine it working but of it did it would be awesome, so I'm neutral.

4. Yes I like to have the last word just as much as the next person but meaningless? (and to call me out because of a old odd little grudge) I think you need to relax more like me.

5. How about a virtual handshake? As friends(ish) not leaving hidden mild sarcastic insulting messages for each other? What ya say?

 

DARCA.

I actually think we are all in agreement, of sorts. Yes, it would mean more micromanagement. I just happen to like micromanagement My proposal was always more about more detailed planetary management than ground combat per se.

But you answered my questions, an increase in micromanagement is not desired for this game.

Cheers!

Okay Darca, then why didn't you post as you've explained in point3 so even I could understand what you meant.  I'm prepared to let bygones be bygones if you think you can also keep to such an agreement.  trouble is I'm such a veteran cynic that I tend to slip into sarcasm without noticing it.

I did say that the idea had initial attraction but it could end up as a game within a game, although it would require higher quality planets or easier terraforming techs than GC2 had.

Exactly.

Now I'm usually a fan of micromanagement and this idea also has appeal. In civilization you have a city viewer why not have a colony viewer in galacticCivilizations. While you still have micro manageing. The city or cities would be laid down automatically. I took a look at my planets occasionally in spore or my cities in civilization. So why not my colonies in galactic civilizations. Both civilization and sim city have a format for this where you would access this like the city viewer in civilization. This would be affected by what you build on a planet and your population. I would also like to see added where if your influence increases then you would pick on how to expand your colony. This would produce bonus buildings to produce in the colonies. As much as it might would be interesting taking away the ability to build new bUildings of this type every year it would probably better to count total influence. This would be like the game call to power.