I strongly support that. This complete lack of ship specialization and any cooperation between ships of a fleet was annoying. Fleets in GC2 were only to stack attack points, nothing else. A real fleet would never act this way. I see that tactical combat is something discussable and nothing easy to implement, but this solution would give at least SOME influence for the player on the outcome.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="49" id="3409522"] Just to recap: Almost every new feature we've added is something that I wish we had had in GalCiv II. Some of it is so obvious that it's embarrassing. Some things are tiny like, for instance, making it easier to have symetrical elements in ship design. Others have to do with the United Planets and diplomacy. Next time you load up GalCiv II, you can kind of tell the kinds of things that we should
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="6" id="3407871"] Maybe they'll make a separate map for star systems, like in MoO2 or Ascendancy. Well, maybe not like Ascendancy. That one was in 3D. [/quote] Well, space IS 3 dimensional. I find flat maps are so... flat. Space isn't flat and even if the milky way is a disc, its about 3000-16000 light years thick. Personally, I liked a 3d map like in Ascendency. It's more realistic.
The freedom to place hull elements everywhere or to completly design new ships from scratch is a nice feature, but one I never used. I want to create a warship with the proper mix of defenses, weapons, drives... I found it somehow disturbing that it didn't matter where to put your systems. I find the way ships are designed in stardrive very good. I didn't play it because it is RTS, but the ship designer looked promising. Of course, it would be very hard to allow the degr
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="24" id="3407814"] There's nothing a fighter can do that a tiny hull couldn't, the push for carriers is mostly people that want to evade the logistics cap (see reply #19) or just on a mindless "lol carriers are cool" rant. [/quote] I disagree. Even a tiny hull ship is a full fledged star ship. It has an FTL drive, life support for longer deployments, a bigger crew than a fighter and is therefore much bigger (and costs more). A fi
[quote who="chuck1es" reply="198" id="3408131"] Oh they'll likely come out with, "We have the best of both worlds!!!".[/quote] Which would lead to interesting discussions in here :D
I find upgrading ships costs money and time is realistic. It takes time and money to put new systems into a vessel and that systems won't come out of nowhere, they have to be produced. And while in shipyard, a battle ship is nothing more than so much tons of dead metal, an easy target for every one. For myself, I re-designed my ships quite often. Either to redegisgn it to match a new thread or simply because a newer tech grade gives more room on your ship and I wanted them as effe
But even the first alpha is months away. Much time to discuss and pseculate - and people to buy the founder's edition (including myself). And to be honest: Wouldn't it be boring if they'd tell us all of their plans? [e digicons]:|[/e] Besides that: plans will change. Many ideas sound good in planning stage, but some things will proof impossible or to have major drawbacks so you have to re-think.
In MoO2, I sometimes whished for a player defined build queue since most colonies build their basic infastructure alway the same way, so instead of picking the same buildings in the right order every time, one click to fill the list would make it easier with out seizing the possibility of doing it the "old" style or to choose another option if needed. The problem I see is to automatically place the buildings on the map - you didn't need to do this in Moo and you want to use the sp
Of course they won't step in - they want to rise the tension as much as possible. A soon they say, "yeah, there is tac combat" or "no, there won't be tac combat", one faction or the other will scream bloody murder and they never ever will buy the game. So why say a thing? Anything they say will pump hydrogen into the fire for everyone will interpret any statement suitable to his/her view.
[quote who="psychoak" reply="189" id="3408030"] I want tactical combat. I don't want control over individual ships. In RTS games, individual unit control leads to high action counts winning games and ridiculously gimmicky things like running units around in circles while other things kill the ships stuck chasing them. In TBS games, it just leads to one of two things. A nightmare, or extremely limited scope. <
I don't get it why this idea would give a rock-paper-scissors feel. Regarding your argument with the evolution of weapon technology (decreases in size, increase in efficiency) - this is what ship designers are for and that's exactly what already happens in GalCiv 2 (and most other 4x games). Assigning roles to ship types is just an addtional element to get more influence on the battle and its outcome.
“Some types of weapons are better against some kinds of defenses,” says Wardell. “You can’t just scattershot. You have to focus. If you’re going to war with the Drengin Empire and they’re focused on, let’s say, shields, then you are going to want to go after them with mass drivers.” Now, that's no news, It sounds exactly like in GalCiv2. Not very promising.
I'm absolutly in favor of diversified ship types! But all you need then is some game mechanics to make sure your vessels behave like their role demands. A carrier consisting of nothing but fighter bays and maybe some flak guns has no business in the first attack wave. Its fighters, yes. But the fighters needs a base to retrun to when the battle is over. Same for the other classes.
[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="115" id="3406084"] Quoting yarodin, reply 115 +1 for tactical combat. Just watching a completly randomized movie is not enough for me. I want (at least the illusion) of making a difference in the combat. You are making a difference through strategy instead of tactics. You do this by many, many means, like ship design, being positioned there in the first place, tech priorities, produc
I really hope they will change the damage model. As far as I remember, in GalCiv 2, there was a 1:1 model. My beam strength against his shields, my missiles against his ECM and my mass drivers against his armor. Not very realistic.
I don't think anybody wants a shoot-em-up part. But playing admiral and give commands to your fleet is not what I would call a shooter. But that's not the issue here. I'm entirly in favor of more unique weapon (and other) technologies. I see no point in doing the complete laser research before I can advance to a better weapon type. I like the idea of some technologies discovered randomly. The propability increases with your over all tech level or in the levels you
+1 for tactical combat. Just watching a completly randomized movie is not enough for me. I want (at least the illusion) of making a difference in the combat. Besides, I'm a great believer in ship specialization and I don't want some AI send my carriers (I hope there will be fighters in the game) into a dogfight. And I want give my destroyers a fighter/missile defense role while my capital ships do the hard work and so on. I don't want to fire every gun in the game