[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="43" id="3408187"] Quoting chuck1es, reply 40You're assuming you'll be the only thinking person. Don't do that. If you don't understand the difference between strategic surprise and tactical surprise, that's not my fault.[/quote] Superb way to cover up your lack of comprehension. ;)
[quote who="Zydor" reply="42" id="3408178"] Quoting chuck1es, reply 30It looks as if the biggest problems against tactical combat of some sort is that its detractors don't think of themselves as intelligent enough to use it. Yep .... I'm real dumb, so lets not do it, it would overwhelm my miniscule brain .... Well, that's yet another pointless tactical combat thread dead.[/quote] They're all fairly pointless. Very few, if any, are actually
[quote who="Martok" reply="41" id="3408171"] Quoting chuck1es, reply 37 I'm speaking from a multiplayer point of view. Fair enough, but the vast majority of folks getting GalCiv3 (as in ~90%) are going to be primarily playing the game in SP mode. So those who oppose and/or are wary regarding tactical combat have valid concerns (regarding the AI being able to handle it). I personally am not worried about this myself, as I'm confi
When that even hits I'm usually so OP anyway that it simply adds extra turns for the end game. Incredibly annoying sometimes but not much else for me.
Oh they'll likely come out with, "We have the best of both worlds!!!" .
[quote who="KzintiPatriarch" reply="190" id="3408052"] Quoting chuck1es, reply 188 We already have 'some control' over our fleets...it's the way we design them. Tactical combat people want control over each ships actions during a battle. That doesn't belong in a TBS like galciv. Case in point. I guess you never played Master of Orion. [/quote] Purposely misunderstand much? ;)
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="38" id="3408077"] Quoting chuck1es, reply 37I'm speaking from a multiplayer point of view. The only reason the "combat viewer" worked in galciv2 was because the AI was purposely hobbled in how it would equip its ships. With more than one person you'll have mroe than one challenger with equal ships because they will change their ships immediately to counter yours. And since there is absolutely no substantial difference in
I'm speaking from a multiplayer point of view. The only reason the "combat viewer" worked in galciv2 was because the AI was purposely hobbled in how it would equip its ships. With more than one person you'll have mroe than one challenger with equal ships because they will change their ships immediately to counter yours. And since there is absolutely no substantial difference in weapon systems it will all come down to whom has the mostest and biggest.
Jarac is an idea thief! :P
AI's will always be exploited. It is based upon the degree of difficulty allowed. The AI can beat out the player every time if the programmers allow it to. Without cheating, to boot. Now consider multiplayer. If strategy is not allowed within combat (which is called "tactics" to differentiate the two modes of thought) then combat will become a boring affiar that adds nothing but time wasted. It won't matter what you've researched nor how you've research
Player-made governors or even planetary type pre-made directions.
It looks as if the biggest problems against tactical combat of some sort is that its detractors don't think of themselves as intelligent enough to use it. ;)
Well, perhaps instead of proclaiming a civilization as simply pirates you can send your own ships/fleets to do pirate activities, under pirate flags, etc. Privateers, corsairs, etc.
I think the OP wants more of such events that lay in wait until you reach a certain point.
They need to kill the whole idea of "Approval" when it comes to expansion. Honestly, I never really liked it (it's historically inaccurate) and Civ5 put the final kibosh on it. And economic penalty makes little more sense. Would be better to have colony ships take up industry points and economic points while being built. Then those same colony ships travel to another planet and logically be self-contained. The hosting civilization could then either let it fend via its own
[quote who="charon2112" reply="186" id="3407904"] Quoting chuck1es, reply 185 People in here are arguing over different ideas of tactical combat. I see too many akin to, "I would like some control over my fleets." usually is responded with "I disaggree because I don't like RTS in GalCiv.". Not even arguing about the same thing. We already have 'some control' over our fleets...it's the way we design them. Tact
People in here are arguing over different ideas of tactical combat. I see too many akin to, "I would like some control over my fleets." usually is responded with "I disaggree because I don't like RTS in GalCiv." . Not even arguing about the same thing.
I don't agree, either. The whole reason why I became involved in 4X games, particularly at such a young age way back when, was the ability to control every aspect (as much as possible) of my empire. To have it grow the way I want, responding to threats and circumstances the way I think it should. I don't know of many, or any 4X games that successfully dumbed themselves down for the sake of simplification. MOO3 (as usual) being an excellent example. You just don't k
Having game-changin' events is always fun. Yet I don't want to be paranoid while playing my game. I don't want odds to be increased that some debilitating event would occur if I get too powerful. Otherwise, what would be the point of becoming powerful?
I dunno whcih way I go. I'm usually happy with more stuff yet I enjoyed the requirement of needing to search to find particular things. When asteroids were introduced I thought they were cool but, at times, it also felt crowded to me. Space always feels better to me when it's, ya know, space.
Go ahead and project, man. We've all been projecting all over each other's faces.
Actually, being able to see the planets and ships you'd trade would be awesome. Too many of each and it's hard as hell to keep 'em all straight.
Seconded!
Tactical abilities does not automatically denote micromanaging the battle. Take MOO3: you control fleets instead of seperate ships and the mechanic is primarily the same. You hit "play" and during that sequence you control movement, engagement, etc. Time frames are essentially the same. The differences lay in the ability to control during the combat sequence.
A RPS system for single player games will more-or-less work simply because the AIs tend to be fairly dumb about such thing. But for multiplayer it'll fairly suck. Seriously, think about how you respond when you see the AI fleet. You change accordingly and the AI, if ever, does so very slowly. Now think about your responses and multiply it. The games will simply be a mad dash towards, say, missile tech for the bigger bang against defenses or simply some middle grou