OT, galactic civ II
 

Based on its reviews I have already made up my mind to purchase it.

Before I do, I am very interested what are the opinions of dom II players wrt to it.

So, whomever have had the chance to play it may share his impressions.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Its pretty cool. The ship builder is amazing. http://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=1...=104951#817132

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

The other really nice feature is the developers... mainly Brad... frequently posts on the forums and the website has him giving daily updates.

The only downside is the game does not have multiplayer... a multiplayer expansion is not official. Personally I'm not buying the game until I see it will have multiplayer.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Not sure I'd want it for MP - too many turns where one person wouldn't be doing anything, while the other player may be adjusting his economy, designing ships, and taking forever, so it wouldn't be all that good for LAN party style games.

And given the number of turns where you're just waiting for some research to complete (in, say, 14 turns) and a ship to be built (in, for instance, 27 turns), it'd be boring and disappointing as a PBEM or even server style game, imo

But it's quite good - the interface has some very irritating quirks* - but the gameplay is pretty cool, with the best diplomacy I've seen in 4X style SP games. And what you can do with the ship designer is amazing - people have made ships that look like transformer style robots and more. (In fact, Stardock already addressed some performance issues related to people going to such extremes in designing ships.)

* Example 1 : No consistent way of going to the next ship that has movement left.

Example 2 : As documented, Esc and Return keys are supposed to close windows. They don't - I've found a grand total of one window that Esc closes, and Return simply, always, ends the turn, which does match documentation in that "will close the current window _or_ end the turn" (emphasis mine). It just always ends the turn - even if you're in a ship designer screen, world production screen, etc. Very dumb design.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Easy fix... you simply place a timer inside the game same as seen with AOW:SM. DOM_2 multiplayer games even have a timer. No reason GAL_CIV_2 can't use a timer as well.


I haven't seen anything in the game which would not make a timer work for keeping a good pace.(a friend has the game) And same as AOW:SM... every time the game is loaded the host can adjust the timer.

Yes this game has great potential, but SP only really limits replay value. SP is fine for a start, but it should definitely add MP. Nothing compares with human opponents/allies.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I agree with Cainehill, MP wouldn't fit this game very well. It can take a very long time to build something. Its not like dominions where you get a set amount of resources a turn to play with. In this game, the cost is turns. So, you can literally spend multiple turns just hitting next waiting for something to happen.

This leads to a very poor setting for PBEM, which is the common medium for TB games. The only viable way to play this MP would be via LAN and even then.....

The Timer addresses how long you have for each turn, it can never address how exciting each turn is.

As far as the replay value, theres a random galaxy generator for sandbox mode, and a campaign. Theres multiple races to choose from, and a whole slew of difficulty settings. But it comes down to how each person values a game. For me, I don't need to play a game for months or years to be satisfied. If a game lasts over 20 hours, I am ok with it. If it lasts 40 hours, I'd say that it was more then worth it. I can easily see 40 hours going into this game. At $40...that comes to $1 per hour.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Yeah - I mean, some of us easily got hundreds of hours out of Master of Orion / Master of Magic, neither of which had any MP - just different combinations of races, magic paths, special abilities, etc.

That said - I'm not sure GC2 will have the same longevity, because the races are essentially pretty similar, and the tech tree, while sizable, is ... bland. Essentially, drives get smaller and sometimes faster; weapons (only 3 varieties) similarly get smaller and sometimes stronger, ditto for defenses.

But definately 40+ hours, especially as the game apparently really changes as you bump up the AI levels ( the AI strategies actually change, as opposed to simply getting more power, as per Dom2 and most other games ).

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Galciv II AI:
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...r/toofunny.jpg

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I have bought it some days ago and must say that I am pleasantly surprised, because all the things I didn't like in the first game have been improved.

Especially the fact that you can watch the battles dominion stile is nice.

However, I would have prefered a multiplayer mode, because there is no point in customizing the look of your ships, as there is no human enemy to appreciate your work.

Edit:

I like whole alignment thing. Last time I played the evil Yor, I had a weak start and were surrounded by stronger enemies. One of the good guys declared war on me, but before he could defeat me one of the other bad factions came to my aid and so on, until we had a galaxywide war

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Reminds me of Deadlock2: Shrine Wars.
Besides being a wonderful spaceish* TBS, it had 7 races, and each had pre-recorded custom messages that fit the race, and some of them were pretty funny.
The Cyth for example, a scary, slightly Darth Vaderish race have a message that goes <in a slow and deep voice>"Use your deep voice to intimidate them, and speak very slowly"</in a slow and deep voice>, the insectoid ChCh-T have a "Praise" the goes something like this: "Your colony blossoms! You must be as happy as a devoured drone!".

*-It doesn't take place in space environments, but rather on different types of planets, on dominions-like maps.
You should give it a go, its a pretty old game (98 IIRC), but its very fun. I'm sure you can get a demo somewhere, and the real game somewhere else.

Other thread
 

Anyone reading this thread may wish to look at the GC2 thread in the Space Empires forum as well. Opinions vary, with mine seeming the most negative, for some reason. I think the next patch (+demo) is scheduled for the end of the month.

Re: Other thread
 

Oooo, I'd definitely like to see a demo.

As for MP, the only problem you all list is the time it takes to build/research things. If thats the only problem then stardock should just drop all the production and research costs by like 1/2 or 1/4 or something for MP play.

That said: I thought that Stardock said they were not pursuing any MP development. Saying that SP was where thier market was so they were just going to do that.

Re: Other thread
 

Their initial basis was the artificial intelligence of adversaries. For many years they have been the number #1 game mentioned in any AI paper as far as game AI. At that time it was available for OS/2 only since Windows didnt have multi-tasking then. Now they are moving into the other OS's, marketing the game, etc etc. But since AI was the starting point (which is mostly a solo-play thing) then I think MultiPlay is probably the last thing to be figured into the GalCiv game. Thats the reverse of many other games which start with the MP, then later on try to add AI onto it.

Re: Other thread
 

In my opinion the game is pretty awful. If you're a Dom2 fan I think you'll be left with a bad taste in your mouth. I can deal with the terrible interface (hey, I play Dom2 don't I?), I can even deal with the poor (and in some cases wrong)documentation, but what I find unacceptable is that there are showstopping AI flaws (tech buy/sell cheese, planet stealing during allied wars) in a game with no multiplayer. Make no mention of the multitude of bugs. Yes, they are fixing them and yes everyone seems to be publishing unfinished games, but that's no excuse to release a game with the volume of problems they had.

Reading threads on their messageboards I found the tone of the vocal developer to be very condescending and sometimes downright insulting to the players who questioned/complained about some "features". Some of the baloney responses that the devs fabricate really seem to indicate that they don't even know how to fix the problems so they try and pretend they are game features.

The depth of strategies in GalCiv2 boils down to which overpowered strat do you want to cheese the computer with. If you're satisfied bumbling around in the dark and never trying to understand the game you're playing and never actually formulating a strategy, GalCiv2 is for you. If you've played and liked Dom2 (MoO2) you'll be disappointed.

Just my opinion. I really wanted to like the game. I really wanted to like MoO3 too... Turn based strategy that's worthwhile? CiV4 and Dom2 are great games. MoO2, CiV3, Advance Wars. I like TBS and 4x, but I regret purchasing GalCiv2.

cjx

Re: Other thread
 

thanks cjx.... I did some more browsing on their forums and you're right... definitely a reason to wait for multiplayer.

Re: Other thread
 

I think "pretty awful" is harsh. (I'm not saying you shouldn't think that or express your thoughts here, by the way - I'm just disagreeing with you)

Winning SP by applying cheeze strats most certainly applies to dom2 (see SC's recent post advocating summoning all the blood uniques - we all know full well that the AI can't handle that). As for Moo2, the AI's "intelligence" consisted entirely of giving the computer overwhelming resource advantages.

Sure I'd love MP galciv2 (if they could implement it so that the game actually moved along at a decent pace). But for SP, comparing gc2 to dom2, it is a lot easier to have fun by choosing to not use cheeze strats in gc2. Even the civ4 forums are full of ideas on ways to make victory all but certain on most of the difficulty levels. Maybe that makes me a "bumbler", but I really cannot think of any SP TBS games (discounting chess, etc) that cannot be beat by exploiting AI weaknesses.

Yes, I prefer MP TBS games for that reason (but very very few other than dom2 implement MP in a way that fits my schedule). So I won't knock gc2 just because it has not fully overcome that inherent weakness of SP strategy games.

Finally, while you may or may not like Brad Wardell and his style, I find it refreshing that he is putting himself right out front - not just in the stardock forums, either. He regularly answers questions in places like OO and QT3 as well.

Re: Other thread
 

Yeah, you could say the same thing about a lot of games. Gamers will always find a way to outsmart the AI, thats why MP is for the most part much more challenging.

That said, I don't take most of the threads *****ing about that kind of stuff to heart this close to release. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I have found that a lot of people complain about "challenge" when they are playing on easy, then come back and say the game is too hard when the bump up the difficulty settings.

And anytime I see a developer in a forum, it is a good thing. I don't care if he is an ***.

Re: Other thread
 

Decent multiplay and decent soloplay have always seemed to be to be anti to each other. Too many good features of one tends to ruin the other. Id much prefer that a developer pick one or the other to concentrate on, and then add whatever they can of the other without compromising the focus of the game

Re: Other thread
 

I read cjx's post as being unhappy that you can exploit the ai reasoning in sp *because there was NO mp alternative*. I didn't think he was merely lamenting lack of good ai alone. Which makes sense to me. Its one thing to have bad AI when you can do something about it - either play mp or script a better ai, etc. It is quite another when you cannot.

Re: Other thread
 

I would like to post a short review of my last game against that awful AI most of the other posters here keep complaining about.

After some successes on smaller maps, I decide to play a huge map with normal difficulty setting. I chose the Altarian Republic to bring peace to the galaxy

Early Expansion
I'm lucky and start the game in a corner of the universe with enough stars around to expand, but with enough distance to the other empires. This will give me some time to prepare for first contact. While expanding, I focus my research on improving my diplomatic skills, because I (playing a good nation) would prefer to win the game by allying with everyone else.

The Drath Wars
Everyone likes me, even the evil Drath Legions. I have remained neutral for most of the time, but now I have to make a decision: The Drath Legions (stongest fleet at that time) have invaded my neighbour, the Iconian Refuge (weakest empire around). Being good, I can't stand bullying and have no choice but to intervene. After diplomatic channels fail to produce a solution, I declare war on the evil Drath. After some initial defeats, my fleets manage to hold their ground and the war comes to a hold.

First universal war
The largest nation, the Torian Alliance, rules the center of the universe. They have common borders with all other nations. Their influence has spread into the territory of their neighbours, and some planets have started to break away from their empires to join the Torian Alliance. Of course those empires have no love for someone stealing their planets, and war errupts. The Torrian Alliance, due to it's delicate position in the middle of the universe, needs a strong ally and secure borders. They chose to ally with the Drath, joining the two separate wars into a big mess. I take the chance and attack the Torian Alliance, snatching some planets next to my borders. Crippled by the attack, the Torian Alliance slowly begins to lose the war, even with the help of the Drath. After some time they offer me peace, grudgingly handing me the control over two more planets. I again declare war and hope to bargain another peace for even more planets. It shall not be, as the Torian Alliance realizes it's defeat, and surrenders all it's remains to the Drath, which are now both the largest and strongest force around. Just as the war comes to another hold, with forces on both sides being depleted, the Dominion of Korx enter the war, it's untouched fleets rampaging through the Drath territory and conquering a large part of the Drath empire. The Drath finally agree to cease fire, and peace returns to the galaxy.

The aftermath

The war leaves me in a mixed position. While I have a massive fleet, many ships are old and not much of a use in future wars. At the same time my people are starting to revolt because of the high taxes I had to collect to keep the war going. I thought my security granted by my three allies. Killing two birds with one stone, I ordered a large part of my fleet to be dismantled, providing the credits to lower my taxes and to buy an alliance with the last neutral empire: The Dominion of Korx. While the Korx had joined the war against the Drath, we never became friends enough to become allies. It would require some time to earn their friendship, or so I thought.

The second universal war

The Korx sensed my weakness and immediately declared war. Much to my horror, only the Iconian Refuge, bound by years of common struggle, honored it's alliance and declared war on the Korx. My other two allies remained neutral, waiting for the right moment to make their own moves. The Korx, who were neutral for most of the first universal war, had a state of the art fleet. Were it not for the Iconians, I would have been overrun in the first few turns. However, I only lost some border colonies and had time enough to rebuild some strength to reconquer those planets. At the peak of the war, my two allies which had remained neutral so far decided to act. The one next to the Korx declared war upon me, fearing that the Korx would destroy it else. The other declared war upon the Xorx, attacking the traitor's flank and grapping some border colonies.

With a diplomatic victory out of reach now, everything seems possible. Who will win this war? Will the Drath use the time to recover? Can a diplomatic victory be achieved? I'll find out later.

Re: Other thread
 

One really nice feature about GAL_CIV_2... no copy protection on the CDs. THUS you install the game... and even if the CDs are damaged you're fine!
Sure enough this method hasn't seemed to affected their sales either... it's one of the hottest PC selling games. Copy_protection software does almost zero... the hackers only see it as a challenge and always beat it. Personally I dislike hackers because when they steal games it only encourages developers to move to the console games. GAL_CIV_2 is definitely ahead of their time for knowing copy software doesn't make a difference. If the game goes multiplayer I will definitely buy the game... also the developers of GAL_CIV_2 might be making MoM_2 !! Thus this GAL_CIV_2 might be the fuel for that game.

Re: Other thread
 

Than those developers are quite stupid, seeing as console games can and have been cracked.
Granted, you'd need more expensive equipment (a DVD burner), but it doesn't change the fact that console games can be cracked.
If anything, it drives developers to MMOGs. While MMOGs can be cracked as well, the quality of the pirate servers is far inferior to that of the official servers, and so people are willing to pay for higher gaming quality.

As for GalCiv2, I played a bit at my friend's house and it seems quite fun. Maybe I'll report back after I try a bit more playing, maybe even buy the game myself.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I got the game from the 1st day (I'm a Totalgaming subscriber) and it's pretty good IMHO : very nice graphics, strategic depth, good AI.
Not-so-good points are a weird economic system and very abstracted ground combat. Lack of multiplayer has been largely explained by the Stardock team, and I don't hold it for a big issue - solo play is good enough.
Additionnally the Stardock guy are very friendly, and their dislike of Starfarce "protection" system is a good point http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Can you blame them? (skip down to Brad Wardell's posts, one of the developers of GCII)

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif
Now I know for a fact that I'm buying GalCivII and giving up on all StarForce games.
Its a shame really, I was hoping to get HoMM V, but I can pass that up for the sake of bashing StarForce.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

The problem with this game is...that its only singleplayer. The game is fantastic, but I beat the AI on the hardest AI settings now, there are many cheap tactics to wipe the best AIs in the game _easily_ ... sadly.
I hope that the 1.1 patch AI update will give us more competition really.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Ok, now that you now that cheap tactics which the AI can't cope with because the developer didn't think about them - can you toss them aside and win the game without them?

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Yes of course I can. All you gotta do is to design the right counter ships against the AI fleets, and nuking their planets while waging war in the space. The AI cannot defend against that. If you build all kind of ships with different defenses/weapons, you wont have problems ever...of course if you mastered the game itself. :-)

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

More importantly, did you provide files and info back to Brad about the always-win tactics? Thats one of the powerful differences in that game (and dominions and other such games) is that the developers are willing to receive our info and fix it.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Yes Gandalf, I posted those cheap tactics on the forums, also sent email. :-)

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

A couple questions for GC2 owners.

I have been playing around with the ship builder, and am having problems trying to figure out ways to hide the "Engine" part of the different extras. The aqua blue area on the rear of the component.

I was working on the Terran cargo ship, the long one, and was trying to fill the middle area to make it look like a regular ship and due to the amount of "dots" was having a hellof a time.

Anyhow, normally with the large components that have "engine" graphics at the end don't have "dots" in those areas.

Any techniques you guys have picked up for solving this?

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Heh. Another reason for there not being MP in GalCiv2 : starting position luck. Mind you, Dominions2 sometimes gives an unreasonable advantage as well ( 1 nation starts with no others within 7 or 8 provinces; everyone else has someone within 2 or 3, or is trapped on a peninsula, etc ). But Dom3 could fix that with either better random placement routines, or, worst case, people could hand-set the starting provinces.

But GC2 : normally you start on a size 10 planet ( for those who haven't played, that means there's 10 habitable areas on the planet where something can be built ). But I've started on a size _19_ planet : imagine how great a technological or manufacturing capitol there would be, multiplying 15 or so labs / factories. Similarly, having a 700% bonus site is amazing, or simply a couple of 300% ones.

And, the placement of the stars and civilizations : because the stars are generated randomly, sometimes you have a great starting position, with 2 or 4 stars that you'll be able to grab the planets for quickly. Othertimes, you're on the lone planet in a corner - and someone else is between you and the other stars. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

For a SP game, this doesn't matter - players can attempt to win from a near-untenable situation, or they can start another game. Similarly, they can restart if their starting position is too advantageous. But the luck factor that is fine for a SP game, is horrible for an MP game where you want things balanced between the players. And toning down the random luck for MP, leaves more of a bland SP game.

IMO, better to do one or the other really really well. Dom2 (and presumably Dom3) does MP awesomely, even if there's perhaps a little too much luck involved, so I can understand if SP is ... a little lacking for many of us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

While GC2 wouldn't be as good for SP if it were changed for MP. Now all we need to do is wait for Brad Wardell to improve the AI a bit, improve the balancing. Just a shame I don't think he can improve the rock/paper/scissors simplicity of the tech trees and combat.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I think those are the things which prevent GC2 from being a great game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif But then, if more complex tech tree and combat orders were in the game, AI would probably have a lot of trouble dealing with it...

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Since multiplayer would be within an expansion... no reason the expansion can't provide the features you mentioned or even better balance features.


The developers have made many multiplayer games in the past... I'm quite sure if multiplayer is added they will address balancing issues. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif It's not like this is there first game. SAME as what we see in AOW:SM... a starting town for all players is selected. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

And sometimes in Dominions a player will find a magic site during turn_3 to recruit a free bane every turn or a magic site to recruit a free devil. The more complex a game the more difficult it will be to get balance.


Wrong... multiplayer and singleplayer games can have a completely different variable for random luck. No reason to change the whole game for one variable.

I disagree... MP for GC2 is a feature which greatly increases replay value. Even those stone cold on singleplay only may one day have an opportunity to do multiplayer via Hotseat or PBEM.

Your biggest concern seems balance... considering BRAD has made mostly multiplayer games in the past I'm quite certain he'll be able to provide balance at least as equal as what we see in DOMINIONS.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I disagree.
I think that solo play tends to be versus the computer. More random in maps, events, action results, etc. Multiplayers tend to prefer more fair maps and events etc etc. Developers tend to do a good job going one direction or the other but not both. A multiplayer game can have a decent soloplay attached to it. And a soloplay game could have a multiplayer element added to it. But in my opinion its not a minor thing to attempt. A game always ends up being one or the other decently.

For example, one of my favorite games is Master of Magic and I continually watch the efforts to create a new one but they always trash it by trying to make it multiplayer. On the other hand, VGA Planets is a great multiplayer game and Ive been faithfully watching for years while the developer tries to add soloplay to it.

Just my humble opinion
Gandalf Parker

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Still, whats the point in creating such a godly ship designer while there is no way to show your custom ships to your friends?
I used it only for the first few games, and then I stopped because it's pointless. Now, if I could blast my roommates ships with my beautiful designed vessels, that would be a completely different story

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I can't think of a single multiplayer game that Stardock has created. What are you talking about here?

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Any great singleplayer game should always move towards adding multiplayer because that will increase gamers in the community, which increases word of mouth, which increases sales and this increases sequels. Not to mention the games increased replay value with multiplayer.
Considering the GAL_CIV_2 game already has a funky working hotseat it should be a minor thing to make hotseat and PBEM available.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I didn't say Stardock... I said BRAD who was one of the developers of Gal_Civ_2. Within his topic "Galactic Civilizations: The case for no multiplayer" he explains he has worked on "a lot of multiplayer games" and even lists some of them.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Word of mouth can also be negative. A good SP game might be awful in MP, unless it was changed enough to become a totally different game. The original players will say it has changed too much and isn't fun any more, and new players will find it either bland (it does nothing new, because it copied other working MP games) or too wierd and strange (it is too different from other MP games and doesn't work, because it was originally meant for SP).

Some examples: Morrowind/Oblivion. They are SP games. The closest things in MP games are MMORPGs - very different. Then, there are the games like Solitaire, and e.g. roguelikes, where the player competes against himself, honing his skills in the game. Games in which one mistake can kill you COULD be made into MP games, in theory, but usually people prefer to die their own mistakes instead of higher-level players.
In some games, the ability to compare high scores is enough. What GalCiv might be able to do is to allow players to create race-templates. It won't be Spore-like dynamic and automatic, constant up/downloading, but it could give AI very weird and complicated ship designs.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Doesn't have to be totally different... take a look at CIV_4. Some changes yes, but definitely a much better game because of the multiplayer option. ( IMHO )

Any game which has a poorly designed multiplayer can ruin the multiplayer experience. The multiplayer game could be unbalanced, bugged, loss of features, etc., . Basically it comes down to if the developers are good enough to make the game good for multiplayer as well... I have faith Brad and his team can make it work.

Games such as Morrowind would be better if they had the 'option' for multiplayer. Much more interesting to work with a team of friends in completing a quest or test the builds of each character in a battle. No reason for the multiplayer to mean only PvP. Once the 'compete against myself' gets boring in singleplayer the multiplayer option opens the door for many new challenges such as:
Team doing a quest
Player vs. Player
Strong Player hunts weaker players
Team attacking a large group of enemies
Team hunting a computer monster
Team vs Team
Players able to trade items, money, services
the list goes on and on

Ways of improving the AI are always great! Hopefully something will be introduced which will allow different AI personalities or designs which would also increase replay value.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Thye could have done it, probably. But doing a good game takes more than just developers. It takes time. They don't have infinite time. I'm happy with their decision to make a great SP game. I'll probably buy it, and have a great time.


But also all the bad things that are seen in MMORPGs. Spamming, farming (not agriculture, but doing boring stuff to become a little more powerful), cheating, unfair trades, simpler quests, no really unique items, inability to solo the game, difficulties in finding people doing the same quest, quests becoming jokes because more experienced players of the team just run through the quest areas, do bare minimum needed, and come back with the reward (to become more powerful little faster), etc. This list also goes on and on. At beast, it could be like Diablo in hotseat. At worst, it would be like a MMORPG released 5 years ago, one that is barely played nowadays, and with servers only staying up for few years before the company puts them to better use.

I still say that it would have to be totally different game if it was developed for multiplayer. And being great might not be good enough. Take Allegiance as an example. 3d space flight battles, with fleets, with commanders, with AI miners players have to defend from opposing players, with big ships whose turrets have to be manned, etc. It flopped, servers went down, and only after lots of fan pleadnig Microsoft released the source for the game, or maybe just for the server program.

I thought of the graphical designs in here. They make the game more interesting visually. Have you seen the Transformer-like robot ships? The various birds, dragons, scorpions, etc?

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Sorry. Im still not convinced of any of this. You kindof strike me as coming across like a lover of MP who looks at every SP game as though it would be better with MP attached to it. But you acknowledge that there are also some great only-MP games.

I on the other hand tend to look at only-MP games as being improved if they added SP. And I acknowledge some great SP games. But at least Im not so hooked that I would push adding SP too hard on some MP developer.

I think that the best in either grouping is written that way from the ground up and could only half-@$$ the other.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Only the developers know how much time is needed. Moving to a more balanced and stable multiplayer setup could be minor or major issue. Since a funky hotseat already works they mainly need to focus on balance and stability. Hopefully multiplayer is added so I can toss my money towards these developers.

Seems like all the issues you listed are only problems for internet gamers.... so make the game LAN only and virtually all those problems vanish or become unimportant.

Gal_Civ_2 was at least moving towards multiplayer at one time since the game works a funky hotseat now. The multiplayer option is just another feature to add as part of an expansion. I'm completely confident Brad and his team can add a stable and balanced multiplayer for Gal_Civ_2. If your view is different that's fine.


Never played this game so I can't comment.

I've seen a few... would be great to do a surprise attack with some of those designs against my relatives.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I do both MP and SP games... where did I acknowledge great only-MP_games???? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

And you are wrong in my view.... if a game is MP only... I truly believe adding SP to a MP_only game would increase replay value. Looks like you are too quick on assumptions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I believe any game should always expand on the content and its replay value. Increasing replay value for me means adding the following features:

Multiplayer (& Singleplayer if it doesn't exist)
Random Game Generator
Map Editor
MODs
Ability for gamers to adjust/improve the AI
Very Large maps/worlds
Campaign((Multiplayer Campaign is even better))

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I have serious doubt about anybody creating game which has great SP and MP in any foreseeable future. You can probably share graphics and story, but the gameplay would have to be written pretty much separately. The core differences are probably in turn structure and game depth. MP games can (and should) have strategic depth (like Dominions), in SP games strategic depth causes a serious problem, because writing AI that can deal with it is not within resources of game developers. Different turn structure means a lot of differences (scripted combat vs turn-based combat, order-based commands vs moves) etc... Of course, that means different balancing, and as result players will need different strategies in SP and MP which brings to the point of pretty much 2 different games under one title. And that I suppose doesn't make business sense, because if developers have expertise to build 2 great games they can just release them as a separate games.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I don't think Brad has worked on any games outside of Stardock. He has founded Stardock when he has just started programming and was writing original Galactic Civilizations and I believe he was in Stardock since then. Have you seen any sources saying otherwise?

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

I could be wrong but I'm sure by visiting the CIV, AOW or NWN forums I could easily find lots of gamers which disagree. Heck I'm sure many gamers do only singleplayer for dominions and really enjoy the game.

Gamers will always use strategies to find weaknesses of computer opponents... that's one of the main reasons singleplayer games have a more limited replay value. Once you discover weaknesses in the AI... the challenge fades.
Also from what I've seen of GAL_CIV_2 this game appears to have lots of strategic depth. Not sure why you see this lacking/missing.

Different strategies in SP and MP exist in almost every single game available which has SP and MP... and all under one title.

It's not two great games... as mentioned earlier GAL_CIV_2 already has an unusual hotseat mode available and working. Behold the miracle already exists, just needs to be made more user friendly and providing MP with optional balanced starts.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

You missed one of my responses... and yes he has worked on "a lot of multiplayer games".
Within his topic "Galactic Civilizations: The case for no multiplayer" he explains he has worked on "a lot of multiplayer games" and even lists some of them.

Re: OT, galactic civ II
 

Let me point out : Civ series : fraking simplistic combat and IMO a pretty boring SP game, plus basically mediocre MP game, in the ones that support MP. NWN : Um??? RPG! Totally different genre - a lot easier making an rpg SP or MP by simply increasing difficulty. AoW : If that's the RTS by microsoft, isn't it pretty darn simplistic, lending to SP or MP? I'm not saying GalCiv2 has the depth of Dom2 - but it has a lot more than most RTS games.

And let's not forget the example of Dom2 : Sure, a number of people think it has a perfectly decent SP game. There's at least an equal number of people who think SP rots, that SP isn't worth playing by the time you play well enough to make it 30-40 turns. (Both the non-existent AI, and the cheezy cheats make it unplayable, or at least non-enjoyable, as a SPS game, imo.)