GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Looks like GalCiv2 is again trying to be more like SEIV/SEV...

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Umm, how does that make GalCiv more like SE???

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Yep, some of those features do sound a lot like stuff SEIV has and SEV will have. Interesting.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

If you follow the GalCiv2 website, you'll notice a lot of requests by the players for the game include SE-type elements...

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

But they still have the rock / paper / scissors weapon model? Just beam / missle / gun ?

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I haven't played it enough yet, but I'm so far kinda disappointed in GC2. I managed in one game to rush my opponent's home world with a pea-shooter and they continue to churn out ship after ship without any weapons. Even though I can't glass the planet or win until I research a ton of invasion tech, it seems a little imbalanced that a homeworld can't protect its fleets in orbit with some low-tech weapons platforms or something.

I don't like how one ship can glass a whole planet w/o support in SEIV, but this scenario is also ridiculous.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

The "Epic Generator" sounds cool. Does SEV have one of those slated? I think that would be a neat add and I'm sure someone has requested / suggested it before.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

SEIV sort of has a simplified "Epic Generator" with the "History" in the diplomacy screen.

It seems that much of what Stardock is trying for GalCiv is from SEIV.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Yeah, I knew that. "Epic Generator" just sounds ... well, more 'epic'. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

GalCiv2 NEEDS to be more like Space Empires. The GalCiv2 campaign is painful and the scale of the game is pretty wimpy compared to the vast fleets we can have in Space Empires. Slick and pretty though and the devs are bending over backwards to give players more of what they want.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

SEV NEEDS more competition so that less people will buy it.
Also, Aaron NEEDS people copying his ideas and making more money off of it than he.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

It sounds like you're treating the purchase of both games as mutually exclusive... but people can buy both games. I see it like this: joe's never heard of se4 and he buys the galciv2 expansion (which is now more like se4), and he loves the modifications... and then he sees someone on the galciv2 forums talking about se4, so he checks out se4. He likes it, finds the forums and awesome mods, and becomes another SE junky.

I suppose I'm not too concerned about galciv2 decreasing SE revenue because SE4 is such a better game all around with more repeatability (sp?)... by the time joe is tired of se4, galciv10 will have come and gone.

Perhaps what I'm trying to say (and failing to do so succinctly) is that games similar to se4 will increase our userbase. Everyone that buys galciv2's expansion might not find their way here, but *some* will. Even if galciv2's expansion makes much more money from Aaron's ideas than Aaron does, he's still better off than he was with a smaller userbase.

does that make sense to anyone else??? i've been in such a philosophical mood lately...

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I bought GC2 and I will buy SE5. I was disappointed with GC2 since it is extremely constrained strategically when compared to SE4. I played GC2 for about a week and then put it away to collect dust and then busted out my copy of SE4 again. Graphics is nothing compared to gameplay when it comes to 4X games. I still play Master of Orion to this day.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

that is the same thing I did with GalCiv I and is why I chose not to buy GalCiv2. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I thought they had released GalCiv2, but I don't recall seeing it in teh stores. I think I'll pass. GC was a great game, but even with better graphics, I much preferred SEIV over GC. I bought MOO 2, but again, after playing it for awhile, I went back to SEIV. Maybe one day someone other than Malfador and Shrapnel will realize that consumers will only buy a game that has the features that they want, instead of whatever the computer company wants to force on us.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I'm pretty sure that GalCiv2 has many of the features that its fan base wants.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

And many that we want to see in SE V.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

One very important feature SEV has which GalCiv2 does not... is multiplayer. 33% of the GalCiv2 community was willing to pay for multiplayer, but Stardock wasn't interested. When SE_V arrives 33% of the GalCiv_2 community will consider playing the SE_V demo and buying the game... all we have to do is let them know when it arrives.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I have downloaded the Demo and I still can't stand the movement set-up of GC2. I like to know how long things will take to get somewhere... Maybe its just me.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I whole-heartedly agree - one of the things I love about se4 and civ4. hopefully that will be added in a patch.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

The one thing I like about GC2, which SE4 or 5 won't have is wonders. I really wish SE5 would have something equivalent to wonders, even if it is a building that every race could only build once, and if it gets destroyed you could never rebuild it. What I find with SE4 and probobly with SE5 is that planets really don't distinguish themselves as being something unique or special. If it was a planet that had a very unique building on it or some rare mineral that improves the whole empire (like resources in Civ 4), then one would feel like that planet is really special.

What would also be cool is to have super giant planets that are ultra-rare but could fit like 40-50 buildings on them, so that when you lost them, it would be a large blow to your empire.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Aside from wonders, planets in galciv2 seem to be lend themselves more distinctly to specific functions. I can't quite narrow down what makes me feel that way. Maybe it's simply because in gc2 you have fewer planets, so it's easier to keep track of their individualities.

In se4, there were the resource percentages which determined, at least in my case, whether the world was going to be mineral organic radioactive or research. there were also ruins, which only made the planet a higher priority to colonize - this little bit of individuality was lost once the ruins were discovered. Also, in some mods, bigger planets are your best space yards due to the higher population.


In gc2, you have specials in the different facility sites on the planet, so if I get a planet that has a 700% bonus to production in a square, I know that's going to be a production powerhouse... similarly, a planet with lotsa farm boosters can have a high population so I'm going to build economic boosters to increase tax revenue.


Typing it out has helped me think through it- I think gc2 has slightly more planet individuality, which is amplified by the fact that my games have always been on a smaller scale and with fewer planets than in se4...

any thoughts?

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Although I have no objections to allowing wonders, I personally think they're silly.

If you can build it once, obviously you can do it again.
If I can build mine while you're still building yours, clearly I can do it after you finish yours too.
Artificial scarcity, pfft! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

What I would enjoy seeing is a system where if you build it, you get an advantage. If someone else builds one too, then they cancel each other out until you go on a napalm crusade and reduce the number of them in the galaxy to just one again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

And of course, the ones you DO make would need to be logical. Not like Civ's Hoover Dam, for example.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

That'd be easy to do with SEIV! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif All you'd have to do is create a new entry in PlanetSize.txt, add another couple entries in SectType.txt, then since you want them to be scarce, only put a few entries for your new planet into SystemTypes.txt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

EDIT: I wonder how AI's would deal with planets with that many extra facility spots...hmm... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I believe this has already been patched...

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

One word: Sphereworlds. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Building a Sphereworld takes up a lot of time and resources. Losing it would mean a very serious blow to your economy, especially if the enemy actually captures it, especially if you've just finished building it up to its full capacity..... owch.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

That's just cause you look at them entirely wrongly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Fill them up with that 200 catchall type most use in their Construction_Facilities files, then possibly nothing if you have even more slots than that.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Well as a player of both games I want to balance the opinion here which is one sided at the moment obviously becuase this is a Space Empires board.

The fact is that SE4 and GC2 are completely different games.

SE4 is more of a detailed blow by blow simulation with lots of micromanagment and flexibility to allow everyone to play the game in loads of differnet ways. GC2 however is more of a strategy game in that you decide the bigger picture. Yes you develop colonies and fleets but once you make a decision there is no need to keep going bcak to remake it, and once you enter a battle the outcome is automatically decided. So you are left to concentrate on controlling the heading of the war or the development of your civilisation rather than concentrating on the individual battles.

The GC2 forum has had people incl me! asking for items to be added that are in SE4 this is true. But this would not necessarily be a good thing, and the jury is out. Perhaps the best way to enjoy GC2 is to go with the flow, enjoy the relaxed decision making in the game, and enjoy truly directing a civilisation, rather than being the second in command and having to do everything yourself.

One only has to compare the ship battles in GC2, which are done automatically for you, to those in SE4 which take ages of plodding around, to appreciate the differences between the games. Sometimes 'less is more' and in this case I can see the Space EMpires games becoming so feature intensive that they become more of a chore to play than a pleasure. In SE4 you seem to spend more time moving your ships from square to square than in actually fun gameplay. Whereas GC2 never bogs you down with that kind of mundane detail.

That said I will be very interested to see what SE5 is like. I did like SE4, played it for quite a while, but I did get fed up trying to get anywhere in the game. With GC2 I havent played it enough to really say which type of game I prefer just yet. I like both and they both have advantages over the other. Maybe I'll just enjoy playing both depending on my mood at the time!

Nats

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Battles in SE4 do not take any plodding around at all.

They sometimes take an hour of CPU grinding on the server in the closet, but that is simply your chance to go to the bathroom, make some coffee, eat dinner, or play other SE4 turns.

Strategic combat.
Simultaneous turn games.
MULTIPLAYER on PBW.
This is the way to play SE4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Tactical combat is a pretty fun minigame in itself, but is not what the game is all about.

Multiplayer is where things get really serious. You have to really refine your ship strategies and designs, and organize your fleets' movement to pull off successful pincer attacks against superior numbers and tonnage.
http://imagemodserver.mine.nu/other/...Tudran2_02.jpg

From your post, it sounds like you would really love simultaneous turn games, once you get over the design strategy screen's learning curve.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

If I wanted to play a board type game I wouldnt be playing a computer game. I play a computer game to have interesting effects that pull me into the game. Ive never really understood people who play pure hex wargames on computers. Same as Ive never understood the people who play games like Rome Total War without the 3d battle sequences. But each to their own.

All I was trying to get across is that SE4 is too much like trying to be all things to all people and providing every single way to play a game but doing none of them particularly well, the tactical battles being particularly badly implemented (for example whats the point in having mines on my ships if I cant lay a minefield?). It looks like this is going to also be the same for SE5 (see my other post about ugly screen shots).

Whereas GC2 defines exactly how the game is to be played and then does it very well. It removes the micromanagement and repeatability of tasks to leave the player able to concentrate on the decision making and is more fun because of it. And yet viewing the battles is quite interesting and you never feel like you want to step in and take over. A few tactical options before the units go to battle would be nice though.

Nats

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

It's a double-edge sword. There are some players that enjoy the chance to micromanage everything and would complain if they couldn't - and others who don't want to do micromanage but feel stuck with it in the SE series. For those that don't like the depth - there are plenty of ways to automate most of the turn-to-turn items. However, with the AI/Ministers lacking in development, it's not as good as it could be. Hopefully with SE:V, the scripting capabilities will be utilized and adept AI modders provide us with some excellent ministers.

Anyway, I don't think either game really needs to be compared to each other. The simple fact is that the more we support the genre, the more gaming options we'll have in the future.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

If I wanted to play a board type game I wouldnt be playing a computer game.

Whereas GC2 defines exactly how the game is to be played and then does it very well.

Isn't that exactly what a board game is? Defines exactly how the game is to be played, due to the very nature of a board game? Board games intrinsically more limited than what you can do with computer games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

(please note the smiley)

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Hmmm...Well the micromanagement is part of the reason I do play SEIV! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif I want to be able to control every single aspect of my empire; after all, if you weren't, you wouldn't be a very good dictator http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Whereas GC2 is, in my opinion, quite limited as to your options. Essentially, play one game of GC2 and you might as well not play it again, since every game is the same; tactics are always the same, your options are quite limited. Whereas SEIV has tons of options, tons of weapons, tons of different strategies, etc etc.

Of course this is my opinion only, and you're not likely to share it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

If you feel like you need to step in and give orders during a combat, that means your strategies you went in with suck, and need to be improved for the next battle.

Or possibly that your enemy is a crafty bugger, and legitimately caught you with your pants down.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Both games are good and you can buy both!

Personally I would rather play an updated version of Stars! than either SE5 or GC2 but unfortuntely that isnt an option at the moment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Nats

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

You should be able to recreate some of the Stars! experience in SE5. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

..you CAN lay a minefield. Just not in combat. Can't really do that in RL either, by the way.

People play hex games on the computer because A. they can be made a lot more detailed and still be playable, B. the turns are MUCH faster, C. AI support, D. multiplayer across the internet

Shiny graphics aren't everything- and before you pull out the old rabbit from the other thread, I DO have a decent system. I can run FEAR at full detail.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

??? The whole point in having a minefield is to either to slow the enemy down so you can attack them at your leisure, or to effectively block certain avenues of approach. In SE its far to easy to put a minefield on all the warp points and compeltely prevent entry into your systems. Is that fun? No.

It would have been very nice indeed to have been able to lay a minefield (yes in 3d - it could be done!) and then sit behind it and attack athe enemy as they approach making sure you have longer range weapons of course. But minefields have absolutely no effect in real time battles which is a right waste of a brillaint gameplay concept.

Similarly planets acting as communication/radar blocks, gravity effects, communication limitations due to warp point distances, etc alal is missing in the game which is supposed to feature gameplay over graphics (sorry Im blending into the other post about graphics here!). All of these concepts are done really really well in Traveller the role playing game. If SE wants to really truly become a great game it should perhaps be integrating some of these fundamental gameplay ideas instead of tinkering with little addon concepts.

This kind of thing would make me want to buy the game. At the moment I cant really see much to buy it for other than the real time battles.

Nats

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Well, your point about minefields is a little incorrect; sure you can block warp points with mines fairly easily, but there's a cheap and easy way of eliminating that threat...minesweepers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

But minefields have absolutely no effect in real time battles which is a right waste of a brillaint gameplay concept.

Whatever mechanic you are thinking of can work in real time battles just the same as turn based ones...

Similarly planets acting as communication/radar blocks, gravity effects, communication limitations due to warp point distances, etc

In order for a planet to block communication between ships, there would first have to be communication between ships implemented. I'm not sure what benefit that would provide though. You can simulate ships being able to hide from radar by giving the "sector - sight obscuration" ability to planets. It's not perfect, but it works.

I don't think gravity effects from planets are very relevant at the scale of ship speeds in SE. When you have the thrust potential to cross an entire star system in two months (at the beginning of the game), overcoming the gravity of any planet is trivial. Even a ship with disabled engines in combat wouldn't fall towards a planet fast enough to make a difference in combat, compared to how fast the other ships are moving.

Communications lag is bad for gameplay in a 4x game through and through. WPs provide instantaneous travel, so it stands to reason they should provide instantaneous communication as well.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I agree. I'm not sure how gravity wells, etc would provide any benefit to gameplay. I'd think it would make things more complicated without any real gameplay reward to justify the pain in the arse it would likely turn out to be.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

You could also argue the 1-month lag in communications in the SE series represents the delay in transmitting messages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

And at this point, I will envoke the Fyron equation:
realism not= good gameplay always

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Hmm, sounds like that's "blocking certain avenues of approach" to me. The real complaint here is that minefields are sector-based, not smaller. Think about it- in SE4 a minefield is detonated whenever you move into the sector, in any direction. That's the reason you can't lay mines in combat- they'd either blow immediately or do nothing.

Homeworld 2 has tactical minelayers, but I don't think they'd fit SEV well.

None of them would really work given the scale of the SE series; see the other posts for reasons.
The combat in SE has always been a bit second fiddle. Its more about the lead-up to that.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

More like blocking all avenues of approach...

Which is why I highly encourage the use of leaky minefields!
Step 1: Remove minesweepers!
Step 2: Reduce mine warhead damage.
Step 3: Limit mines to 10 per sector!

Now, mines will have to be spread around in many sectors. Any single invasion force will miss most of the mines, but they will hit some, and those *will* do damage. Light damage for each sector, but some damage nonetheless. The ships will have to slow down for repairs, or suffer ever-accumulating damage.
The defender will quickly fill the warppoint sector, and then have to decide which paths to mine... lots on the path to likely targets, or spread them around thinly to catch the sneaky fleets that try to second-guess your mine placement.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I thought the point of mines was to set a "boobytrap" for your enemy, then leave it for them to find. Mines in real time are kinda dumb and ineficient, if the enemy sees you drop a minefield then whas the point?

On another note you could try Drones, they are suicidal fire and forget units that are dropped and chase the enemy around, not entirely unlike mines, just they move(can units cloak? cloaked drones sond fun, you couldn't use the cloak in combat but it would be a fun surprise in the system).

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Minefields in modern warfare are not intended to kill or disable assets (vehicles/troops), yet it does happen. Mostly you setup a minefield, the same reason you would make a big ditch, berm, barbed wire, or some kind of wall or fence. That is to manuver or guide you enemy into a location for you to hit them with other weapons. Basically you use them to deny the enemy that portion of the battlefield.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Well this is the only point in using them in SE! That you set a minefield at a warp point and anything that goes through it gets blasted. But thats not how mines work in real life. In real life mines are quite easy to find. But the reason for them is that they slow down/prevent access through becuase of them being so risky to enter.

To be honest I dont mind that mines themselves jsut the warp points really. I dont think they are very good for fun gameplay. You can easily blockade them from the thick AI civs and thereby protect your systems completely. I prefer the Stars! and GC2 mechanics of being able to travel between the stars without the help of warp points and therefore invide from any direction. This makes fields of mines far more sensible.

Youve just got to play Stars! for a week to realise that the gameplay ideas etc are far better than any other 4x game to date and its only the graphics that make the game rather unplayable for most.

Both GC2 and SE4 are reasonable games in themselves but neither are better than Stars!

Nats

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

Stars! Is quite good. Its main weakness is combat, however.

A very tiny combat grid, with some ship designs capable of effectively moving all the way across it in one turn. Ship stacking in combat is also way out of control. No manoeuvering or formations, just pile on and trade blows, may the biggest guns & armor win.

Stars!, with SE4's UI, ship design, combat, research and moddability would rule. Throw in SE3 style ship construction and intel, too.

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

oh yeah stars!, I played 1000s of hours on that, a moment of silence for Stars! Supernova Genesis.....

Re: GalCiv2 Expansion
 

I dunno... having to build transports to haul around resources explicitly kinda killed it for me.