I think Brad has some good ideas here.  As someone who micromanages all of my planets because I can't stand not to take advantage of their full potential, I often find myself completely absorbed in the early game and then start losing interest as I achieve dominance and know the game is won. It often takes me three times as long (in days elapsed) to finish a game as to get to the dominant point, because I lose interest in having to manage more and more planets as I defeat the other players.

I look forward to seeing how these ideas pan out.

I think GalCiv 3 is a big mess. I hope it can be all fixed, but I have my doubts. I think development has gone in the wrong direction for too long.

I think the UI has been overlooked. It looks pretty but often it times takes a lot of work to do stuff. For instance, I can't change the repeat ship in my shipyards quickly. When you have dozens and dozens of shipyards, you have to go through them all one at a time if you want them all repeat building the newest ships. Upgrading ships in just a fleet is time consuming if you use a lot of tiny ships. Managing ships is also a chore if you tiny ships. There is no ctrl + a or hold shift to select a lot of ships at once. Rally points don't work well if you try to use them to create a fleet.

I've been working on a document that has a lot of my ideas written down. I'll go compile and organize it, then post it later.

I like the ideas listed here and look forward to see how the next GC game turns out.

I would have to agree with DivineWrath that ship management (and management in general) can definitely become a chore as the game progresses. But this is a general issue in a lot of strategy and 4X games.

I know it's sort of an apples to quasars comparison, but looking at games like Stellaris and AI War 2 for how they do fleet management could help to simplify automation in a future GalCiv game.

Stellaris (post 2.0) has a Fleet Manager that lets you choose what ship designs should go in a specific fleet and set a number of ships to build in that fleet up to the fleet capacity. Then all you have to do is click one button to "fill" up the fleet (this would auto fill the queues of the nearest free shipyards with build orders) and there is also an upgrade button to upgrade the entire fleet (on paper this feature sounds great, but in practice it bugs out often enough to often require more micro than it removes, but that's a game issue, not an issue with the concept itself... ah Paradox games, love em but they tend to be buggy).

AI War 2 has ship lines (a single fixed design) assigned to flagships (a control group that is also a capital ship). From the UI for a flagship, you can move ship lines between flagships (flagships have a ship control limit) and set various AI automation. This builds on the idea of the fleet manager from Stellaris in that it adds automation to the group (movement, combat, rebuilding, and upgrading) and can be set to rebuild/upgrade ships to capacity automatically (construction/upgrading happens from the flagship, so is probably less useful for GC, since the econ in AI War 2 is much simpler than GC games). This game is also much more of an RTS / Tower Defense with grand strategy elements and not really like GC3, but the design here by letting the player set the automation at the fleet/group level (and having good options) is a solid one for any strategy game.

I guess the overall jist I'm aiming for here is for moving ship management from building up individual ships and assigning them to fleets to the opposite where you start at the fleet level, pick what ships/designs you want in that fleet and can also set various automation configurations at the fleet level for combat, movement (patrolling, rallying, etc...), rebuilding (auto rebuild to cap vs. manual rebuild, also picking where that would happen vs. letting the AI pick the nearest free constructors), and upgrading or swapping ship designs. In short, a top down approach to management, instead of a bottom up one.

I would also extend this concept to planet management, allowing the player to setup planetary groups (akin to a fleet in concept for management purposes) and set a lot of high level configuration from the group manager (automation, maybe a general build queue for planets for a quasi-player driven way of doing automation without having the AI just build whatever... i.e. a player defined 'playlist' they can pick from a list of previously saved lists that would attempt to build every building on the list in order if available at that planet, and the automation would also need to be able to pick the best locations for each taking adjacency into account). i.e. You group all your production focused planets into a "Builder" fleet/group and from the high level manager you can give all the planets in this group the "Basic Production" playlist and set whatever other automation you want and then let it be, and just add new planets into this group as need be and they would be automatically managed based on the groups settings.

If the next GC is looking to simplify colony management at the basic level, I also have to point out Master of Orion as having probably one of the most elegant simplifications of doing this, by just having a few sliders to adjust planetary percentages. This is a simple design space to delve into and by mixing this approach with the fleet/group idea one could quickly and easily manage an empire in a scalable manner, allowing the player to focus on the few planets they care about for manual control and using the managers for everything else.

Also, I've not played it, but I've heard many say that Distant Worlds has some of the best automation (though the game itself doesn't look super approachable) in any 4X style game, allowing the player to configure and play the game at pretty much any level they want, from individual colony management, to empire management, to just running a single ship. Being able to configure and change these sorts of options on the fly would be great, though probably a lot of work to create from the dev side of things.

In short, more optional automation and higher level control groupings with configurable automation could go a long way for the next GC game.

That turned out to be a bit more rambling than I planned. Anywho, hopefully something here proves to be useful.

Brad,

Thank you for a great update on where things are moving!

I have played all incarnations of Gal Civ III and the current is the most enjoyable but I do agree its a slog late game. 

Love Citizens > keep  moving towards this concept as you stated.

Combat > the old viewer is a tad dated. Id prefer to have more hands on but in the same vein to have the option to have it 'auto' resolved' as late game again can be tough managing dozens of space battles. 

Tech Tree > love it. Grab the idea from Civ IV and give us a 'randomized tree' option to screw with us! 

I hope to be part of your outside team to find bugs and improve Gal Civ for everyone. 

I agree the UI needs some improvement. 

Looking forward to the future of Gal Civ

If you're hinting at what I think you are, that would be amazing.  But I dare not hope at this point.... 

 

 

I'm not going to argue with either of these.   

 

Regarding the tech tree, one thing I would love to see is an option for it to be randomized.  It would also be great if the next available technologies could be "hidden", like in Stellaris.  (Sorry; I hate the constant comparisons to that game as well, but it's the only example I can think of off the top of my head.) 

I've come to realize that I genuinely enjoy *not* planning out my tech research in advance; it simply becomes boring after a while.  Instead, rather, having the techs be randomized and hidden brings a sense of excitement, and a genuine sense of discovery -- what secrets might my scientists unlock next? 

 

 

Ground combat is rarely (if ever) done well, in GalCiv or any other 4x game. 

About the only improvement/change I can think of is that I prefer it when invasions take multiple turns.  It's never felt realistic to me that an entire planet could fall so quickly, at least on a regular basis.  (I realize this is debatable, however.) 

Of course, in the case of GalCiv4, I imagine that multiple-turn invasions (even if implemented) would only happen on those more important "sponsored" worlds that you mentioned. 

 

 

Combat doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" prospect at all, if retreating is made a viable tactical option.  Of course, this would then mean implementing some form of tactical combat...which I really, truly hope you're finally doing this time around. 

 

 

I like this concept.  A lot. 

 

 

...And I *love* this concept!  It would allow empires to feel genuinely epic in scale, whilst introducing a common-sense mechanic limiting the micromanagement hell that plagues the genre.  Man, that's honestly kinda brilliant. 

 

 

I'm just gonna repeat what I said earlier:  Sounds flippin' fantastic, but I'm not going to hope for too much at this point.  Keep expectations on the ground... 

 

 

Nice.  Although I'm still compelled to ask:  Any idea yet how many folks will be able to play in a "standard" long game of MP? 

 

 

Yessssss! 

The sandbox game has needed this (or something like it) for a long time now.  This makes me very, very happy.  

 

 

I like the concept of Meh Planet = Automatic Resource Generator and I'd suggest a switch where, at any point, you can decide that the precise resource you want your Meh Planets Population/Citizens to provide is Wealth/Production/Research. I see that as being preferable than each planet proving 1/3 boost to each of those 3 areas. If you didn't want to implement my switch idea, you could scale what they provide with their Level rating - which admittedly would still mean everyone ignores the Level 1-4 planets, but I think unless those planets have a really useful resource/artifact on them which helps your plans move along, they tend to get ignored anyway. Also, if you're going to go with the Meh Planet = Automatic Resource Generator concept, how will that affect the need for asteroid mining? I know I'd rather take a Level 2 planet than mine the asteroids around it, if I had to make a choice.

Invasions: How about a system where different race types have different technologies at hand (so basically, when you create your custome race or even play one of the standard races, you can specialise in Propaganda Warfare because of another trait you've picked (ie Sneaky), or specialize in Biological Warfare because your race is already good at colonizing Toxic Worlds so it stands to reason you know how Toxins work. I'm not suggesting cutting off Invasion types, more that certain races are better served by focussing on one certain type, given their abilities and traits. As a counter to this, how about making certain planet types more or less resistant to certain Invasion techniques? For example, it stands to reason that a Planet that provides bonuses to Research isn't going to be populated by stupid folk, so Biological Warfare and Tidal Disruption will take longer to work (due to knowledge of how to deal with/live with their negative effects, if it all. But they can be swayed by Information Warfare. Planets that have high approval have the opposite problems - small brains, big hearts. They Love Their Leader but that biological stuff kills 'em dead quick.

Increasing the usage and depth of Citizens sounds like a great idea. My only proviso would be that if you really want players to focus on Population = Citizens = Usage, I can see a point where, if only for simplicity's sake, you do away with Buildings, given the maths involved with what a Citizen would provide versus what a Building would provide, especially if you wanted to go with the idea of Citizens "levelling up" over time (kind of like the Kittens in Kittensgame - if you keep them in, say, Farmer mode, they become better Farmers over time). If you want to keep the option of sending a Citizen to Planet 34 or building the lastest, greatest Research Labs there, that maths balance will be important.

 

This list is a good start.

GalCiv3 went from "okay, let's rebuild Galciv2 but better and slowly reintegrate old features in new ways" to "Okay, this isn't quite working let's throw some stuff at the wall and see what sticks" with mixed results. Some of it great! Some of it...works but isn't that fun.

And I am happy that insane maps will be tackled because it just doesn't work that well in GalCiv3. Which is understandable, because it takes a huge time sink to test macro-scale gameplay on large maps. Small maps are fast and tactical.

But let's tackle the elephant in the room of 4x gameplay: Stellaris. I can get my empire shattered and broken in Stellaris and still have fun. In fact, part of the fun is that random events can hose your empire and the challenge is digging out of that hole. In GalCiv 3, I can end up drudging for a good hour only to abandon a game because events are in a death spiral. So, a few things:

1. Interstellar War should be hard but not in a way where it's just a time-sink to build up to it. Maps-within-maps idea can kind of come into play - War can be fast and tactical in near-space/within the cluster, but fighting someone on the other side of the galaxy is nigh impossible without being high on the tech tree. One way would be Range/Logistics. The further away from your star nation you are, the more expensive ship/fleet maintenance becomes. Large ships and fleets can only be sustained either in your territory or near your territory, while smaller ships/fleets can have longer supply chains.

2. More Civ building less Fleet building.

3. Megaprojects that are actual megaprojects and not just an icon on a planet map with stats. More stuff like Gates, Starbases, etc. Habitats! Trade lanes!

4. Wild and crazy minor races! Hire the Dark Yor to steal tech, the Snathi to pirate, etc!

5. Interstellar "Road" Hierarchy. How cool would it be to zoom in on a gate-chain and see traffic cues! Kinda like City Skylines traffic.

6. Also, like City Skylines, more overlays! Or at least more useful overlays using gradient maps for things. Like resources.

Okay, I'm tired so things went a bit off from where I was going, but these are some ideas.

So basically I should stop harbouring any expectations of further improvements to the GC3 gameplay, and really should quit bitching about the current state of carriers like I've been doing for the past month or so?

Alright then. Message received, expectations calibrated. It's a shame, but c'est la vie. Time to shift focus onto the next iteration of GalCiv.

Yeah, about that. We know the Ship Builder is already accessible from the main menu. Can I ask for GalCiv4 that the tech tree also comes incorporated with it as well, specifically a version where we can toggle individual techs off and on at will?

It will really help players like me, who like to design entire series of ship module loadouts before starting a game.

Do you guys already have an idea for what that would look like? If not, here's mine; do away with the Battle Viewer altogether, and have all combat take place in the Galaxy view.

Give individual ships an effective range of fire of several hexes, within which they can initiate an attack on an enemy ship. Enemy ships that move within your ship's effective range provoke an Attack of Opportunity; this should make ships "stick" to each other in combat, while giving them the option to retreat if things get too hot.

In addition, restrict stacking such that the number of ships that can occupy a single hex decreases with increasing size, all the way to the point that only one Large or Huge ship can occupy a hex at any point in time.

In place of entire fleets occupying a single hex, make it possible for a designated command ship to establish a "formation" of other ships, which will take up positions several hexes away in a pre-determined location, facing a specific direction. Kind of like how it works in Ashes of the Singularity, actually.

Carriers should probably work differently from other warships; perhaps they could act as "artillery" units, sending fighter swarms to strike individual combatants in an enemy formation from the back line of their own formation. These could be countered by "destroyer" type ships that are built specifically to be effective against groups of Tiny/Small ships.

All this should probably work to give you the "line of battle" I vaguely recall you mentioning some time back.

Let me know if you want me to dabble in Paint or something, to illustrate what I'm talking about.

I never tried the MP, so take my words here with a grain of salt. But have you considered persistent galaxy instances, hosted on cloud servers instead of requiring players to act as the host?

Basically what I'm thinking of here is a 4X version of EVE Online. So an MMO4X? I dunno.

To keep players' required time investment down to a manageable level, you could make it so that all players can only complete one turn every, say, 12 hours or so.

This would get you games on huge maps with multiple players that could last weeks, months or even years. Sort of the epic empire-building experience, instead of quick once-and-done games. But I'd argue that's the point of 4X games like these.

 

Just reading through DivineWrath's very detailed report:

First thing that comes to mind: Is it possible to make everything that requires a Resource to work/happen reliant not on, say, a predefined Resource like Durantium, but on the most common resource as created in map generation? So, let's say I start up a game and GalCivIV creates a map with Snuggler Colonies the most common resource in my galaxy. Thulium is second or third most common. The system then tells me that to build a Manufacturing Capital, I need 5 Snuggler Colonies and 5 Thulium, of which there are plenty in the my game's Galaxy, as opposed to how it works now, where a Manufacturing Capital requires 5 Durantium and 5 Antimatter, of which there are approximately nada in the my game's Galaxy. Note: These resources might well be in reality very common in every galaxy ever created by Galactic Civilizations III, I'm just using examples here. I'm sure those always-bountiful resources in III will remain so in IV.

Essentially, everything that requires resources can be built, no matter what the Galaxy setup is. But what you can do, is have a system where the more powerful an upgrade/improvement/mercenary/whatever is, the harder is it find the resource/resources to make that thing work. It does exist in the Galaxy. Somewhere. You'll just have to find it. Or buy it. Or steal it.

From a design point of view, tooltips would need to be redone so that they look at the galaxy created and tell the player "To build this Improvement/upgrade this Improvement/Hire this Mercenary/Do Thing That Is Low Grade Powerful, you need 5 x (MostCommonResource) and 2 x (SecondMostCommonResource)" and "To build this Improvement/upgrade this Improvement/Hire this Mercenary/Do Thing That Is High Grade Powerful, you need 5 x (LeastCommonResource) and 2 x (SecondLeastCommonResource)" when they hover over it in the appropriate screen/menu.

Would it ruin people's "immersion" too much to know on game startup that their galaxy is full of Antimatter and not Elerium? I know it wouldn't bother me in the slightest, I have no problem starting Turn 1 with a fair amount of knowledge (I prefer to regard my Race, whether a Game Race or Custom Race as "I'm taking control as your New Leader" so my Race gained certain knowledge before I took over rather than "I am your First Leader" and everyone's clueless until I tell them to find things out), but others might prefer the "I have no idea what's going on here, I'm just going to hunt for Elerium and hope for the best. Without that Elerium, I'm going to have to think of something else/go without those upgrades." approach.

 

I think carriers should exist. They should just be late game units that are very expensive to field. They should only be able to be built in the largest hull size.
Also they need to be kinda like Starcraft carriers where when interceptors are destroyed they needed to be rebuilt. It would make small planets with limited manufacturing into small fighter producers. It would also make it so for your fighters to have the latest and greatest you have to upgrade them.

I haven’t used a carrier since I went on and endless rampage with a single carrier and decided it was broken as fuck. I do buy them from the bazaar just to make sure the computer doesn’t get an early bullshit unit. 

If this can’t be done then or doesn’t feel worth it then they should be removed I hate current carriers. They are overpowered as fuck and have no drawbacks. 

I truly hope something is going to be done about carriers and I don’t think I am alone in that regard.

 

 

To me you either make carriers are proper mechanic ala WW2 or just keep it to ship vs ship warfare.They just end a mess with either overpowered or underpowered with years of moaning ala like most other space 4x games that have them.

I always thought that Master of Orion II as the turn-basd 4X was strongly influential on GalCiv.  But Master of Orion in terms of hitting that optimal spot between less micromanagement but the ability to pivot resources for targeted management was never replicated well in later 4X games.  The AI working alone is fairly consistent and a human is self-consistent, but a Cybrid is tricky to program to have the AI follow the human leader.

 

An empire that is too vast to micromanage is appealing like how Master of Orion late-games were, but the AI standard to avoid frustration or artificially stupid bottlenecks is a hard barrier to overcome.  Also Master of Orion also had a randomized and skippable tech tree.  There was stress involved that with the presented technologies to research, you might not get another pass at it.

 

There is also one feature I hope carries over in terms of Worlds in Crisis where adsorbing a world into your empire might not be as easy as expected.  

 

In terms of the resource issue, I hope that there is a branch of the tech tree/production buildings devoted to ersatz solutions to resource bottlenecks.  I mean in real history, we got the Haber process from Germany being starved of nitrogen.  There were too many random maps where there was just one resource that bottlenecked the campaign and made the map too deterministic.  You want the resource if you can get it, or else, you pay a huge alternate cost for a half-solution.