First impressions

So, I've "played" my first game on the alpha version.

I won't speak about graphics and UI as these are not my primary concern.

 

About the game, my very first feeling was that I was playing Galactic Civilization II. That's not good. I feel that we are not seing any significant changes from the previous GalCiv versions. Possibly people that read this post will point out to me some major differences, but the only exception I saw (a very good one btw) is the Ideology choice panel.

 

One: In GalCiv, my empire never looks like an empire ; rather a collection of unrelated planets that are independant from each other. So, in every planet, I have to balance food production (which supports population levels) with other productions. Even now, in our countries, things don't work like this: cities are interconnected, and food is produced distantly. One could say the same thing for indutry or research. It is my feeling that the galactic empire cannot feel like a real emprie if such interconnection cannot be done. While reasearch is indeed shared (all research going into the same pool) there should be a way to share production and food. This would probably involve setting up a freighter force pool ; which might possibly be vulnerable to enemy attacks (think submarine attacks in ww2) : this could open up a whole avenue of new techs and tactics. Also, such sharing allows one to specialize planets as agricultural planets or industrial planets or research planets or financial planets..., something that's hard to achieve in the galciv series. even though such specializations appear in most Scifi settings I know about. The one exception I see (a welcome improvement) is the "sponsor" planet choice for starport. That's a good step in the right direction. Far from sufficient yet.

 

Two: Planet development is not very fun. This was true even in GalCiv2. Why ? Unfortunately, most buildings work as +% to something. That feels more like an excel sheet and doesn't translate immediately in the player mind into something meaningfull. Indeed, the feeling can be quite wrong: building a +100% building might look great. But possibly, once built (after a long investment), you may discover that it isn't exactly what you thought: applying +100% over a low base value is not that big... The human mind is well suited for simple additions : buildings should likely often follow that rule. This is already true for some od them (farms for exemple), but most others don't.

 

Three: Somehow, many such games provide population management: you assign your population some tasks. You just don't only build the buildings, but you should man them. In the civilization series, each pop unit goes to some task, be it on map (producing from a countryside hex), or in a building (as specialist) ; this results in cinvilization city management being like a mini game in the game: how to better organize my population to reach my goal ? In galciv, such a  feature could bring much. In particular, it could avoid the "I build all hexes" syndrom: as of now, there is no reason not to fill every hex in a planet. Indeed, there are good reasons to do so (more % bonus) and one focuses mostly on raw building production. The amount of population you have comes behind, as its immediate effect is far from obvious. Assigning population units to buildings would make population growth a visible goal (even though it currently is important, but is somewhat hidden in the background figures.)

 

To be continued...

5,676 views 15 replies
Reply #1 Top

There is so much new stuff it all can't even fit though my brain stem so i can't even tell its so good...or its four in the morning and i can't sleep. Really I am the first to respond but not the best to describe all the new stuff planned. ;)

Sorta, 1. Has been suggested in a similar fashion by myself, so I like that you thought of something I wanted. :)

2. All games like this give a % of something because there isn't much else to do strategically, and its not really a problem to feel like buildings are just percentages because they are. IMHO. (my grammar sucks)

3. No.*

 

 

DARCA ;)

Reply #2 Top

Glad I could help. ;)

Reply #3 Top
One how. Two how. One of the reasons game developers don't fix problems is that people cite problems without solutions so they find their own solutions to the problem. I wouldn't want this as a requirement but I wouldn't mind hooking planets to each other to share resources. I also would like to see interplanetary immigration. On the third point I always the city management screen and citizen management would be a nice addition to galactic civilizations. Even though I would like to manually control this some would not want this so I would like to propose to make it both a local and global governor option to shut on and off to have this as an automated governor option on by default.
Reply #4 Top

Four: I feel that there should be some choice of government form. After all, one of the reason for Star Wars is the clash between an "evil" dictatorial empire form of government and a "good" republic of federated planets... Somehow, I feel such choices give depth to a game, without necessarily much added complications. There should be forms of governments (democratic, plutocratic, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, military...), but also economic style (free trade, mercantilism, planned, ecologic...), freedom style (free press, police state, people tracking, thought control) as well as social issues (cloning, cybernetics, population control...) and civilization values (wealth, knowledge, power, spiritual, nature...) ; these would merge well with the current Ideology trees that are already present. An additional, intriging, depth could be added by having each planet having its own government style and values, different from the central government which the player controls. Government styles give many opportunities in the game: between civilizations they can cause friction (or friendship) ; within the empire, it could cause localized unrest (e.g. a dictatorial planet under a democratic empire) ;  races could have preferred styles, for additional bonus.

 

Five: I believe it would feel good to introduce "mundane" strategic resources ; we have them, but at these are galactic resources with far reaching consequences (at least in GCII.) ; these indeed look more like artefacts than resources... I speak about more mundane resources. Each planet comes with special spots. These spots could be associated with a specific resource that could benefit the entire empire ; for exemple, a bonus population spot might also produce some spice that would be necessary for the research and building of some enternainment. Or an industrial bonus spot might produce some exotic metal that is necessary to produce some ship part. Such resources could even have far reaching consequences, from preventing you from building some ship parts or some buildings (if you don't have any), limiting the number of ships/buildings using such resources that you can simultaneously build (depending on the number and richness of those you control), possibly going as far as disabling some parts of the tech trees that could depend on the ownership of such resources. Once more, such a system isn't that complex to introduce within the game, and it would give each planet an individual feeling and a specific value (that class two planet that has a rare resource might be worth fighting over!) ; it also opens up new possibilities within diplomacy (trading resources.)

 

Six: The ship design in GCII has always been a weak spot. Its more a scisor/paper/stone game than anything else. It cruely lacks depth. And from what I have seen, it looks like that GC3 has more or less the same (I'm not speaking about graphic, which I don't care about). In effect, there is absolutely no distinction between beam/missiles/kinetic weapons (apart from specific weapons figures size/damage). All are clones of each others (unless I failed to see specific improvements in the tech tree.) ; but there should be! A beam weapon should have a good aim (it travels at ~lightspeed), while a low tech kinetic should have a low aim. A missile would have a good aim. A kinetic can have a long range, but a beam might disperse and become inefficient. A missile is limited by its fuel... Kinetic and Beam weapons might need ship provided energy, whereas missiles definitely don't. Missile specific defenses (chaff) should be absolutely inefficient against kinetics and marginaly efficient againt beam (some dispersion) ; but point blank defenses (short range guns designed to take down approaching missiles) would have no effect against other kinds.  Beam defenses (shields) should be absolutely inefficient against missiles (which do not rely on impact strength to deliver their damage) and somewhat efficient against kinetic weapons (slowing them down.) Kinetic defenses (armor) sould be equally efficient against all attacks (whatever means you use, you have to penetrate the armor.) ; after that, technology could provide specific weapons with specific effects (e.g. a beam weapon that does lower overall damage but cuts better through armor or bypasses shields). Indeed, a tactical combat screen would be a very welcome adition, but I understand how complex it can be to add into the game! such a screen would let take range and aim into account in a way that the player could actually understand the effect of his design choices. But even without such a screen weapons should evolve to add the following statistics: range (at least short/medium/long), base aim (as a % to hit, missiles and beam being high, kinetics being low) ; ships should have an evade value (0 against most beams, half against kinetic, full against missiles ; smaller ships evading with more ease) as well as an additional aim value (computers on board for ship movement prediction) for kinetics or beams (but not missiles.) ; and each engagement should last a limited number of rounds, not necessarily ending with the loss of one fleet: there is no reason why a battle should be an all or nothing event. Each round would be at a specific range (long/medium/short), the fastest fleet usually being able to position itself either at its most efficient range (offensive stance), or at the range where the opponent does the least damage (defensive stance)... One could also throw in commanders (which would influence range positionning) or combat scanners (which can track individual ships for combat purpose and could influence both the aim and possible range for engagement...) Well all these are ideas thrown into the wind. I just hope that some of them will take root...

 

Seven: Planet classes. At this time, all planets have a class which indicates the number of available building spots.) They also have a type which gives some specific bonus. Class 0 planets seem to serve little purpose (iirc they didn't have a use in GC2 either.) : this doesn't feel good. Everything should have some use at some point in the game. There is no reason why utterly useless class 0 planets couldn't be at least mined. They could indeed contain rare materials (see point five) ; they could be used to plant an outpost that could act like a starbase ; given enough tech (which might depend on the type of the planet), it should be possible to expend a constructor to terraform them to class 1. I also feel that not all races should view planets in the same way : an aquatic alien race (do we have one ?) would have a (reasonably large) bonus (in terms of class) on an oceanic planet while a desert loving race would have a bonus on a desert planet. Some planets should have high gravity (large planets) which would be a mixed blessing : it should have a higher class, but in the short term working there goes with a penalty ; or low gravity (small planets) which works in the reverse (easy to work there, but class penalty) ; a planet may lack an atmosphere (and one could be created using the right tech), have a poisonous one (which would require it being filtered), or an acidic one (which could prevent any installation before it is processed) ; the planet itself could be volcanic (so less room to settle there but easy energy for the industry), barren (like the moon, severely curtailing growth for lack of water or ice)... indeed, many combinations leading to varied, but clearly expressed, bonus or malus, all of which can be reduced or offset by the appropriate terraforming tech (and lots of work!) ; as the game is now (and was in GC2), you grab any high class planet that you can. That's fairly static. But if you meet a high gravity oceanic planet with an acidic atmosphere, you first have to bypass it (because you cannot colonize it for lack of tech.) But you'd always know that there is a potential winner (class 20+ ?), provided you engage in the right researches and investment, to settle there before another race ; its still a race for going faster than your opponents, but the race is more complex : now it is just: how fast can I build a colony, how fast can it reach there. With other conditions thrown in, you have to invest into "useless" tech (which do not provide any immediate advantage and may set you back in other areas), build you colony and still hope to be the first. In addition, you have to manage the fact that as long as you don't have the right techs to levy the penalties, you have a sub-optimal colony, that may even be a burden on your budget...

 

Reply #5 Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 3

One how. Two how. One of the reasons game developers don't fix problems is that people cite problems without solutions so they find their own solutions to the problem. I wouldn't want this as a requirement but I wouldn't mind hooking planets to each other to share resources. I also would like to see interplanetary immigration. On the third point I always the city management screen and citizen management would be a nice addition to galactic civilizations. Even though I would like to manually control this some would not want this so I would like to propose to make it both a local and global governor option to shut on and off to have this as an automated governor option on by default.
End of admiralWillyWilber's quote

 

One: easy: there were trade routes in GC2, except that they were used for foreigne trade: extend the concept to internal trade routes! Planetary immigration should be possible using colony ships that are not used on arrival (the ship is not recycled to form the initial module) ; but immigration itself should not be "at will" ; planets with low unrest should not provide immigrants, these with high unrest should. That's more tricky. Unless you're in your evil mood and taking away people doesn't bother you.

Two: instead of having the basic factory give +10% for production, have it give +0.5 or whatever... then throw in percentage bonus. As a matter of fact, a planet with one basic factory (no special tile) is not producing much more than one with none! If you bother investing on a factory, it should give a reasonable bonus from the start! That's just arraging figures in some data files...

Three: I agree, but I understand that this is a major overhaul and I don't know if that goes within the designers plans... If done nicely like in civ5, both sides (these who want and these who don't) could be satisfied (in civ5 you can play without ever touching the pops)

Reply #6 Top

Let me say only thank goodness (it is) like Gal Civ II. Most of your points have been discussed in previous posts. Many features have not even been enabled yet so we cannot really say this or that is how it should be.

 

The game is founded on the rock/paper/scissors idea of combat. The system works well and is easy to understand for newcomers without overwhelming them.

 

My overall response is to say wait and lets see what the Betas bring.

 

Good write up btw.

 

 

Reply #7 Top

Many features are not in yet. So as to those useless class 0 planets, I suspect the currently disabled terraforming will be what you are looking for.

I believe the ideology tree is essentially something like your government request. Malevelent societies will be hated, etc. The name given to a government doesn't mean it works the same everywhere. Look around our current world. Supposedly Russia is a democracy :p

I think they said they were adding more resources. I certainly hope they do and trading them will be an aspect of the game.

The combat system hasn't really been documented. We don't know all the ins and ours of speed of the ship increases its ability to dodge fire, etc. There is probably something in there or coming soon for aiming, etc.

Overall though, you made some good points.

 

Reply #8 Top

Quoting Larsenex, reply 6

Let me say only thank goodness (it is) like Gal Civ II. Most of your points have been discussed in previous posts. Many features have not even been enabled yet so we cannot really say this or that is how it should be.
 
End of Larsenex's quote

I'm aware that this is an alpha and features are not all in!


The game is founded on the rock/paper/scissors idea of combat. The system works well and is easy to understand for newcomers without overwhelming them.
End of quote

It works. It is not intuitive as you may believe (a 1/1/1 defense is as good as a 0/2/2 defense... oh yeah!)

And because the game is not "GalCiv2 - the next generation" but GalCiv3, there is no reason why the designers might not want to try something a bit more complex. After all, at some point, the Civ series went overboard with their combat system (as many units as you wanted in a square, combat was as in galciv: one survivor...), to what we have now (including veteran units etc...) ; some may regret that spearmen are now not be able to destroy a battleship in Civ5, but I don't...


My overall response is to say wait and lets see what the Betas bring.
End of quote

Well, I did not hand down some hard won bucks just to shut my mouth down... I wanted to have at least some right to ask the game to move into what I believe to be a good direction. Otherwise, why change anything at all ? Note that there are many choices that I don't discuss : for exemple, the planets should only appear within a star system (this is what you see in most such games), not on the galactic scale. But I believe that this is not something that can really affect the enjoyment with the game.
 

Good write up btw.
End of quote

Thanks!

Reply #9 Top

Quoting Blaze, reply 7

Many features are not in yet. So as to those useless class 0 planets, I suspect the currently disabled terraforming will be what you are looking for.
End of Blaze's quote

In GC2 it did not. I would like to ensure that this is not so in GC3.


I believe the ideology tree is essentially something like your government request. Malevelent societies will be hated, etc. The name given to a government doesn't mean it works the same everywhere. Look around our current world. Supposedly Russia is a democracy :P
End of quote

The given name is not what I mean. I mean the actual government form. The current Russian government is actually autocratic (elections are rigged) although it does have popular support (it would today win unrigged elections.) So even assuming it were a fair democracy, it is clear that its civilization value would be power, and its economic style probably mercantilist. The freedom style would be censorship (something in between police state and free press) ; quite far from the american democracy where the civilization value is wealth, the economic style free trade (debatable though), and the freedom style free press: as you see, this can really express differences. I'd not rate neither the USA nor Russia as evil or benevolent: they're both rather pragmatic (the USA started the second Iraki war on rather shaky evidence, whereas Russia just seized up Crimea on shaky claims) : the Ideology tree is not sufficient to express the differences (if you want an evil exemple, go to North Korea, or go back to Cambodgia under the red kmher). Furthermore, the idea behind my proposal is to inject empire wide bonus (for exemple, a civilization with wealth as a value would produce more credits all other things being equal), and I don't see such things in the Ideology tree (you get specific buildings instead.)

 

Reply #10 Top

Government forms will be in just not now.

Reply #11 Top

The given name is not what I mean. I mean the actual government form. The current Russian government is actually autocratic (elections are rigged) although it does have popular support (it would today win unrigged elections.) So even assuming it were a fair democracy, it is clear that its civilization value would be power, and its economic style probably mercantilist. The freedom style would be censorship (something in between police state and free press) ; quite far from the american democracy where the civilization value is wealth, the economic style free trade (debatable though), and the freedom style free press: as you see, this can really express differences. I'd not rate neither the USA nor Russia as evil or benevolent: they're both rather pragmatic (the USA started the second Iraki war on rather shaky evidence, whereas Russia just seized up Crimea on shaky claims) : the Ideology tree is not sufficient to express the differences (if you want an evil exemple, go to North Korea, or go back to Cambodgia under the red kmher). Furthermore, the idea behind my proposal is to inject empire wide bonus (for exemple, a civilization with wealth as a value would produce more credits all other things being equal), and I don't see such things in the Ideology tree (you get specific buildings instead.)

The international community agreed with the USA on the Iraq WMD evidence (which IMO says something unflattering about "consensus" being equated to "correct") and the consensus along with existing UN resolutions was the basis for an invasion, and there is no such consensus about Russia's claims and no international support anywhere to be found.  Further the USA doesn't want Iraq as a state, and Russia does want the Crimea as one.  So you may want to pick a clearer example for your benevolence comparison.

As to that actual suggestion of a civilization bonus to wealth (as an example), do the buildings that result from ideology tree not provide those kinds of bonuses?  It was my impression that they would.  And wouldn't the building or not building them allow your desired planet to planet variance of government?

Reply #12 Top

Quoting Ryat, reply 10

Government forms will be in just not now.
End of Ryat's quote

 

|-) |-) |-)

Reply #13 Top
Quoting Athlgrond, reply 11

The international community agreed with the USA on the Iraq WMD evidence (which IMO says something unflattering about "consensus" being equated to "correct") and the consensus along with existing UN resolutions was the basis for an invasion, and there is no such consensus about Russia's claims and no international support anywhere to be found.  Further the USA doesn't want Iraq as a state, and Russia does want the Crimea as one.  So you may want to pick a clearer example for your benevolence comparison.

End of Athlgrond's quote

Said evidence was obviously wrong (no WMD were found), its clear something went amiss. As for Crimea, all historians do agree that Crimea is historically Russian and not Ukrainian ; but that's obviously not politicaly correct to say... In both cases there are things that are right and wrong : that's what I call pragmatism... A "benevolent" USA would have recognized its proofs as unsound enough to start a war (benefit of the doubt) ; a pragmatic USA found that these proofs were enough (too dangerous if the proofs are right.) An evil Russia would have invaded half of Ukraine (nobody would have moved) and pushed all non Russians out ; a pragmatic Russia understands that it can seize Crimea for its benefit, and that most countries will look aside (note that Russia is being vindicated for its current role in the rebellion ; nobody speaks about Crimea...)

I won't answer anymore on this topic to avoid a flame war.


As to that actual suggestion of a civilization bonus to wealth (as an example), do the buildings that result from ideology tree not provide those kinds of bonuses?  It was my impression that they would.  And wouldn't the building or not building them allow your desired planet to planet variance of government?
End of quote

No, rather not. The fact that people like to, say, meditate, doesn't come with a specific wonder-like building. They're just like that, and because they're like that, this gives some immediate benefits not tied to any building (lower unrest or whatever). The USA reaped the benefits of wealth much before building wall-street, which itself adds new bonus!

Reply #14 Top

Quoting moi-meme, reply 4

I believe it would feel good to introduce "mundane" strategic resources ; we have them, but at these are galactic resources with far reaching consequences (at least in GCII.)
End of moi-meme's quote

The current strategic resources are things like Elerium, Duranthium, Antimatter, and the like. You need them to build certain ship modules. The old resources from GalCiv 1 and 2 will be back in the form of "Relics" (at least as far as I can tell by looking at the game-files).

Quoting moi-meme, reply 4

In effect, there is absolutely no distinction between beam/missiles/kinetic weapons (apart from specific weapons figures size/damage). All are clones of each others (unless I failed to see specific improvements in the tech tree.)
End of moi-meme's quote

You most certainly failed to see a lot in the tech tree, if that is how you feel about weapons. Even more so, you also failed to see a certain statement by the devs. ;)

"GalCiv III has sublight speed, mass, rate of fire, weapons range, accuracy and evasion to deal with along with the roles of ships in a fleet."

Quoting moi-meme, reply 4
Class 0 planets seem to serve little purpose
End of moi-meme's quote

Cough.

"There will be rings and moons, and they are planned to give Bonuses. There will also be two minable planet types."

Also, I suggest you play GalCiv 2 again. You'll notice a lot more of the differences that way.

Reply #15 Top

Quoting Gaunathor, reply 14

The current strategic resources are things like Elerium, Duranthium, Antimatter, and the like. You need them to build certain ship modules. The old resources from GalCiv 1 and 2 will be back in the form of "Relics" (at least as far as I can tell by looking at the game-files).
End of Gaunathor's quote

That's good. But I'd expect more of them for different pruposes ; not exclusively ships.

In effect, there is absolutely no distinction between beam/missiles/kinetic weapons (apart from specific weapons figures size/damage). All are clones of each others (unless I failed to see specific improvements in the tech tree.)
End of quote

At least, it came down to that in GC2. What I have seen in the current alpha carries over from that.


You most certainly failed to see a lot in the tech tree, if that is how you feel about weapons. Even more so, you also failed to see a certain statement by the devs. ;)

"GalCiv III has sublight speed, mass, rate of fire, weapons range, accuracy and evasion to deal with along with the roles of ships in a fleet."
End of quote


Whoah! :grin:  That's great : it's likely that this wish will be fulfilled. I'll need some more djins though...

Cough.

"There will be rings and moons, and they are planned to give Bonuses. There will also be two minable planet types."

Also, I suggest you play GalCiv 2 again. You'll notice a lot more of the differences that way.

End of quote

I did not know about these minable planet types. I understand that rings and moons are for habitable planets.

And unfortunately, I don't have that much time, neither to delve into the forum to extract all the information you passed down nor to replay GalCiv2 (which I have played numerous times.)