Page 1 of 1
Galatic Civilisations 2?
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:43 pm
I bought Galciv 1 about 18 months ago and didnt like it due to the extremely limited battle tactics. Ie One ship gobbles up all the smaller ships etc which makes for a real boring game.
Plus no ship design killed it anyway.
I was just wondering if anyone has tried the new edition. Is it any improvement over the old one? As in more of an improvement of MoO2 ship design + proper battles...
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:37 pm
Ship design has improved, but the feature is useless since the battles are useless.
Ship design you can build ships to look any way you want. You can position parts on a hull or use a 3d model of your that you may have made.
But then the combat lets you down. My ship was on the bottom of the screen. Theirs on the top. The only buttons were play, fastforward, etc. I could only watch as their ship flew torwards mine and was blown to bits by my ship. Combat is pathetic. The player has no control over space combat at all. There is only watching, no doing.
It is this that ruins what could have been a good game, as the rest was looking good, until space combat was revealed to me.
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:58 pm
Thanks for the warning lol
I definately wont be wasting money on that
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:18 pm
IMHO it suffers much from similar syndrome to MOO3: you don't know what effects what and how. For example something as simple as building trade station modules that give you money for each freighter passing its range. But you don't know how much, or even that any freighters will pass (continue passing through) its range.
But the biggest let down is absolutely combat. What they did is WORSE than civ-style auto-resolve. Design options are severely limited and then you just get to watch what IS ESSENTIALLY auto-resolve.
And the idea of fleets is silly too.
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:11 pm
I think you guys are playing (and complaining) the wrong game. Remember, it's GalCiv
, not GalMOO4. GalCiv is, I gather, intended to be a "pure" strategy game, and not a mixed tactical-strategy game that is MOOX. Similar to CIV, having player-resolved tactical
battles doesn't fit with pure strategy
. Simiarly, if I recall correctly, even the CTP games didn't let the player control the battle, but just showed the results of armies clashing. As well, MOO and MOO2 had a lot less non-ships strategy stuff going on in the universe and economically than does GalCiv. Sure, there was lots to build, but a common complaint about MOO2 from the econ design discussions on these forums was that you ended up building everything everywhere anyway, which isn't really that strategic. Also, at least for most people here, the real point of playing MOO seems to be to build a huge fleet and go kill the AI fleets. GalCiv however, is less battle focused, and more "diversified" in its strategic offerings... You're supposed to be able to win with a variety of strategies, including non-ship-big-fleet ones. This is even more strategically varied than non-tactical Civ games, which, before Civ4 anyway, don't really have that much else going on strategically.
From this interview
with Brad Wardell:
Brad Wardell wrote:Master of Orion is essentially a tactical war game first and an empire builder second. MOO is about designing your ships and having them battle it out. Everything else is secondary to that. Galactic Civilizations II is an empire builder first that includes ship design but it's not the core part of the game.
A lot of people have said that GalCivII is a lot like Alpha Centauri in space (or Civ in space) which is probably a bit more accurate.
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:29 pm
I have to give the GalCiv guys credit. They set out to accomplish a very specific thing and they did just that. They're a small dev team (well, not FreeOrion small, but ... still small) and they've got a business model that works very well for them. I've heard that they're going to release an expansion that includes a more thorough combat system (similar to how the upcoming expansion includes a whole new espionage systme) and basically 'add on' bits to the game, using the revenue from the previous releases to fund each successive one so they don't have to make sweet, sweet love to some nefarious publisher.
The downside for us is that we have to buy the game, you know, a few times, but it's more than arguably complete as is (as it was very well reviewed). I occasionally get in to it but I start to feel bit, I don't know, like a traitor after a while.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:57 am
I think if GalCiv 2 had an expansion that improved combat, that would be great. I wonder why the made ship design so custom (put parts on hull, etc) when it wasn't really used to its fullest potential. They could have saved money on that feature and added more to other features, that would have made the game more complete.
I think that in a 4x game, all avenues should be possible and have equal depth in playability. The combat players can build ships and enjoy combat. The spies can obtain secrets and begin blackmail. The diplomats can make aliances.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:50 am
Lol I guess we MoO2 fans have been spoiled by an in depth ship design and tactical combat system. But ask anyone what the main flaws of the 'civ' type games are and the answer is usually boring wars from lack of tactics.
I see it as possible to have a civ style game as well as a tacticall combat system and a complex ship design. Sure it would be a little too much micromanagement but the combat could be kept reasonalby simple by putting limits on fleet sizes and keeping battles short and simple etc... Smart designers should be able to solve these problems from experience in past games.
I hope that the freeorion team balances tactics better than MoO2 anyway. Limited fleet sizes would really help (~12 ships per fleet). I hated how a 50 strong size death star fleet would mop up the entre universe. But i'm sure these things have been thought through already and this isnt the thead for it anyway.
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:50 pm
Going by what they say on their site, the new ship construction stuff is the most loved part of the new game.
And the purpose of the new "shiny" battle engine is just that. To be shiny. As pointed out it's purpose is NOT interactivity, just like you couldn't interact with the ships in Stars!. It's there too look pretty for all the peeps who want graphics and fun explosions and that malarky.
Overall it's not a bad game, but if your interest is more with shiny blowing stuff up, then try homeworld.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:50 am
i personally think galciv and galciv is a very good strategy game. geoff got it right: it's meant to play more as macro strategy game, as in the old adage, "you win wars because you already won". the combat was meant to be very simple, in fact my guess is that they made combats more complex in galciv 2 because more players likes ship design and tactical combats. though there is a price to pay when you add complexity to one part of the game. for example, the macro economic game suffered a little as result and it's kinda annoy to re-optimize ship design every time a refinement ship tech comes in.
i think if players play games like moo3 like it was meant to be played, they might enjoy it better. not that i'm saying those games are flawless, but games within in same genre have different systems and style of playing, seperate from game mechanics. you just have to pick the style and the balance between strategy and tactics you like better. i think galciv and galciv 2 has a lot of great ideas that many strategy games and FO could use and some mistakes we can avoid.
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:34 pm
So, anyone tried the expansion Dark Avatar? It seems to be getting good reviews, with an overall rating of around 87% (very good for a expansion): http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor ... darkavatar
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:35 am
they added more to esponiage, astroid fields that you can mine on the strategic map, super abilites, more customization of your opponents, rebalanced ability points, and campaign of course.