GalCiv2 Expansion

[Captain Kwok]

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.

[Fyron]

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.

(please note the smiley)

[Renegade 13]

Nats said:
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

Hmmm...Well the micromanagement is part of the reason I do play SEIV! 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

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

[Suicide Junkie]

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.

[Nats]

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

Nats

[Fyron]

You should be able to recreate some of the Stars! experience in SE5.

[Phoenix-D]

..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.

[Nats]

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

??? 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

[Renegade 13]

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

[Fyron]

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.