Ideas for Galciv 2

from Stardock Forums
Galciv needs an improved combat system.

Space Level
Introduce three levels of ship, which are more effective working together than apart in space engagements.

Fighter level
Small manuverable ships that cannot outgun larger ships in a broadside engagement and thus rely on speed on manuvorability to harry their larger opponents and reduce their effectiveness against the enemies batteships and cruisers. They are also quick to take advantage of any damage inflicted on larger vessals and thus gain bonuses against damaged larger foes.

Cruiser level
These middle-size ships, while they cannot beat battleships in a one to one fight can working in groups of two or three bring them down. But mostly they screen the flanks of the battleships against fighters, bieng armed with powerful enough guns to eliminate them easily and bieng agile enough to catch them. However fighters are a lot cheaper and can often overwhelm a poorly supported cruiser sheer.

Battleships
Armed with guns that can reduce lesser ships to scrap with a single shot and capable of taking considerable punishment due to heavy armour battleships are the most feared ships in any fleet. On the down side they have poor mobility and thus vulnrable to faster and more manuevrable foes unless supported by an escort of their own.

All three kinds of ships should keep upgrading throughout the game with technolodgy. (ie a battleship becomes a dreadnought as technology progress)

Planetery Level
When a transport or group of transports invades a system it takes up orbit in the target system. In order for the invasion to succeed those transports need to be protected from enemy ships as they carry out the invasion. If they are destroyed then the invasion ends. An invasion can last for months. The defender has a surrender bar that is determined by the courage, morale and loyalty of the defending planet. The attacker also has a surrender bar, this is determined by the average morale of a civand their own courage value. If the defenders break then any surviving population become citizens of the attackers empire. (but mantain seperate racial status and abilities).
3,692 views 116 replies
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Things I would like to see in GalCiv2:

More government types - we need viable alternatives. Such as a warlord government which could give you benefits in ship maintenance costs and production abilities but have penalties in social and research production

Rebellions - enemy planets you conquer should have a risk of revolting based on their loyalty to their previous empire. This could be altered by things such as cultural dominance, government type, etc.

Fleet Combat - this ones been done to death so I don't feel a need to add too much.

Goblin Cookies idea of more ship types each with their own abilities would add a new tactical dimension. Nice idea.

Galactic Council - Be able to call and pass resolutions at will or with a time limit, say every ten years. Give more options and make it a more central part of the game.

Wormholes - Would add a new tactical element to gameplay. It could make for surprise attacks against each other, fights for control over them, the ability to build starbases on them and recieve some kind of research bonus.

Economic model - add inflation, historically new empires have grown only to be crushed by inflation (look at spain, rome, assyria, the timurids, etc. Inflation is generated when the supply and demand of the economy are out of balance, or in this case your tax/trade receipts versus your spending, it would mean tribute from alien civilisation, etc would cause inflation if you spent it all at once. Rush building should also cause inflation.

Logistics/Starases - this is one of the reasons I no longer actively play the game. The logistics concept does not make sense. If anyone has any better ideas please post them.

Just my two cents worth :)

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
There is a http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?BID=GF&id=168685#175679 to another thread that has suggestions for GC2. There are some good suggestions there as well.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
You could make the Fighters have 0 range so they'd need to be brought to the fight by a carrier. The carrier could hold 20 of 'em and oooohhhhhhhh it'd be sweet. :D :D :D
[Message Edited]
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't really want to see star fighter carriers, if you think about it their entirely unnecessery in space. The fighters are small versions of the larger ships, not attack craft based from them. How about a refueling post, a cheap starbase that can't be improved but extends starship range. They are also defenseless against attack craft so need to be guarded by other ships.

I forgot one kind of ship type that needs to exist, orbital defenses.

Static Orbital defenses
These huge orbital monsters are too large to be moved and are confined in the system that built them forever. Their firepower is equal to that of a battleship but they are somewhat cheaper due to the lack of mobility.

Mobile Orbital defenses
These are smaller versions of the static defenses, their firepower is similer to that of a cruiser. They can be attatched to colony ships which act as tugs. However while bieng moved between systems the orbital defenses are highly vulnrable due to the fact that the unarmoured tugs can be picked off by even a lone fighter, leaving them stranded in the middle of space (count as destroyed)

Orbital fighters
Ground based fighters that aren't equipped with hyperdrives, these ships are abysmally cheap but not all that effective against anything larger than a normal fighter unless equipped with vast numbers (which they often posess. Up to 30 of these fighters can be transported by colony ships although they cannot leave the hulls of their carriers and thus are defenseless enroute.

Such defenses are a good investment in peacetime as they are cheap to mantain, while ensuring that your civilization isn't defenseless against a sudden war.

Due somewhat to the large numbers of local crew onboard such ships however rebel factions on the planet below can easily capture them and use them as defense against the inevitable counterattack from the ousted regimes space forces. Randomly generated minors in the new game would start off with such defenses built giving them some early defense against the bullies in the playground.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Cheers Goblin cookie :)

Come on peeps lets get a discussion going and once we've come up with a host of ideas we'll ask CariElf if they're implementable as the code for GC2 is already part done lets give them some feedback! :)
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Well, till now all the ideas, you two brought up, sounded great.
I like the wormhole tactic idea, that gives very much new posibilities. How about to artifically create wormholes, for a short time, in late game too?
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Logistics/Starases - this is one of the reasons I no longer actively play the game. The logistics concept does not make sense. If anyone has any better ideas please post them.
End of quote


Just limit the number of bases by a distance rule (2-4 squares is fine, and make it moddable), and have an upkeep cost based on the logistics ability.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
I've decided how the ship to ship fighting system should work. Basicly ships fire first at ships of their own size ie fighters fire at fighters, battleships fire at battleship and cruisers fire at cruisers and then at the ships closest to them in size.

Here's the formula

Fighters
If there are no fighters the fighters fire at cruisers.
If their are no cruisers they fire at battleships.

Cruisers
If there are no cruisers then the cruisers fire at fighters and battleships evenly. If one of the two isn't present then they will fire all guns against the remaining kind.

Battleships
Battleships fire at battleships, if there are no battleships they fire at cruisers and only if their are no cruisers do they turn their guns against fighters.

These rules expecially important beacause a damaged ship has less firepower than an undamaged ship.

Thus a large group of unescorted battleships can be defeated by a statisticly much weaker combined force beacause the damage they take weakens their firepower while they are restricted to fire at the battleships first. Thus in the time it woud take them to destroy the enemy battleships even when with numerical supremacy all the kinds of enemy ships would fire at them.

While the enemy battleships would take a beating their fighters and cruisers would dish out damage unweakened and thus at full firepower.
[Message Edited]
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
Good stuff Goblin Cookie. One though, say what you think:

There should be different types of each ship. For example one of the fighter classes could be an attack bomber that would prioritise enemy cruisers, etc.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
A play-by-e-mail mode (and other multiplayer options). No matter how much I like GalCiv (and it's great AI), at one point my interest in the game got lost. With the Altarian Prophecy I've picked up playing again, but it won't last forever I'm sure.

But the reason I'm STILL playing Age of Wonders II and Shadow Magic are the great PBEM and multiplayer modes. I think GalCiv II could be an excellent game for PBEM too.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
ships fire first at ships of their own size ie fighters fire at fighters, battleships fire at battleship and cruisers fire at cruisers and then at the ships closest to them in size.
End of quote



Tactically this is insanity.

Ensign: Admiral there is a wing of enemy fighters approaching on our port.

Admiral: Ignore them they are a different class to us, just keep slugging away at their crippled battleship.

Ensign: Aye-Aye sir. Incoming. Oh dear we appear to be dead.


What I'm saying is, if such rules of engagement existed, all a foe would have to do to ensure victory is to keep his ships of one class away from your ships of the same class, ie to attack a battleship he could place his just out of range from yours, your battleship would then be compelled to chase his battleship, whilst his fighters could attack with impugnity.

There is no reason why space combat should be that different to terrestial air combat.
Rule 1: Eliminate the fighters first!!!!!!


Having said all that, the combat system undoubtably needs a major overhaul, groups of ships should have an effect greater than the sum of the parts
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
A play-by-e-mail mode (and other multiplayer options). No matter how much I like GalCiv (and it's great AI), at one point my interest in the game got lost. With the Altarian Prophecy I've picked up playing again, but it won't last forever I'm sure.
End of quote

Currently this is in a player made version used, see: Succession Game
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
I have a different and IMO more realistic idea:

Each ship has a number of guns, of various sizes, some are only effective against large ships others against smaller ships. After all you don't use heat seeking misiles against infantery or submarines.

Let's say we have beams, projectiles and misiles. Beams are less powerfull against large ships due to their better shielding, but great for targeting fighters and misiles, and since they are light-speed weapons they have a high accuracy.

Projectiles are good for medium and long range, since they do not disipate, and they have good penetration. The drawback is: on projectile on target. And fighters have a good chance of avoiding them altogether.

Some misiles are good against fighters, other against larger foes. Depending on the intended target class they trade damage for manuverability. A good misile against fighters have a very high hit-rate, while doing little damage to a capital ship. On the other hand misiles designed to take out capital ships, have very little chance of hitting a fighter, but if they do kabooooooom!!!!! :HOT:

If we do not get in-game ship design this could translate to certain ships being more effective against certain oponents, like fighters and fighter-bombers. The first is most effective agains small nimble oponents, while the second is most efective against capital ships.
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't think the battleship would have much choice.

The battleship can only face one direction at once so if it was blazing away at the enemy battleship and turned the fighters would scatter leaving the enemy battleship to pound it to scrap unnoposed. Battleships simply aren't mobile enough to effectivly fight both kinds of ship at once. If their were no battleships to threaten them they could blaze at the fighters with impunity. In the scenario Strek mentioned the battleship would just tell the cruisers and fighters escorting it to deal with the enemy fighters.

Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
i'd like to see alignment embedded more instrisically into the game resulting perhaps in ever-evolving (and devolving) military, economic, social, morale, influence and diplomatic strategies

1. more morally challenging and broader UP events with greater affect on gameplay eg this civ has MWD's. shall we invade? Yes. oops no MWD's......

2. evolving and devolving of governments as a result of alignment changes. different governments for different situations. why can't we change parties during the game either strategically (a glorious revolution) or involuntarily due to alignment choices (a religious crusade)?

3. alignment ramifications with tech developments/tech trades - more alignment specific techs?

4. more sophisticated diplomatic/trade based on alignment. can Pure Good really trade with Pure Evil? If they do, what happens to their alignment?

5. imfluence specific to alignment. surely pure good or pure evil has a vastly greater influence than neutral?

it'd be nice to take the Terrans on a journey through chaotic multiple states. the tension of playing on top of a bucking bull. when i first played galciv, this is what it felt like playing the game. when you get the hang of it, the tension is different. one of the thing i LOVED about Civ3 was the map playthrough at the end.....made you feel like you'd been on a long journey. i az never got the hang of finishing in an hour.....

:)
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
1. more morally challenging and broader UP events with greater affect on gameplay eg this civ has MWD's. shall we invade? Yes. oops no MWD's......
End of quote


Nice idea steve I like it. MWD's in this place could be anti-matter-missiles!
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
The battleship can only face one direction at once
End of quote



That's true for anything, but think of a (space) battleship like a WW2 flying fortress on steroids; longer range than its nominal escorts, big cannons up front and rear, and lots and lots and lots of tracking gun turrets to deal with smaller irritants.

Any designer who suggested a battleship with only a forward mounted weapon should be shot as a traitor and saboteur.
Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top
LORD EXAR KUUN! YOU AZ BEEN DELIQUENT IN DA SFC
End of quote


Steve there will be an update coming soon; I have something special planned !! :SURPRISED:
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top
Any designer who suggested a battleship with only a forward mounted weapon should be shot as a traitor and saboteur.
End of quote


On nearly all ships main weapons face forwards with roughly a 90-180 arc. The weapons on the rear are normally very light and just enough to give you some cover while you maneuver. This has been standard practice on ships/bombers since WWII
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
CariElf if you are reading this thread would it be possible to make this discussion a sticky thread and append the thread "Suggestions for Galciv II" to this one so that they are all together?

There have been several good ideas that people have posted. I would like to think that some of these ideas may stimulate creative juices for Galciv 2 whether you use the ideas or not.
Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top
On lord evil steves ideas.....
1. Agree with the idea of an expanded U.P. Civs should be able to decide the agenda of a meeting beforehand by submitting proposals directly to the U.P (If none are submitted then agenda is chosen at random as it is currently).
2.I like the idea and will submit more about it in the below post on galciv 2 politics.
3. I think the trading of alignment specific techs has been dealt with already. As for more alignment techs, well you can't have too much of a good thing.
4. I don't think their should be penalties for good civs trading with civs of evil alignment and definatly not the other way round.
5. Totally not fair, nuetral civs shouldn't have a influence penalty. Why? Liberalism can spread itself quite well.