Tactical combat in expansion? » Forum Post by nightboy42

There's also another thing to consider say you have 30+ battles to fight a turn, thats a hella lot of time between turns.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There's also another thing to consider say you have 30+ battles to fight a turn, thats a hella lot of time between turns.

Agreed. That's when the quick resolve button comes in handy. You only control the battles you feel like controlling.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So essentially, you're backing off your handwaving claims that the leader of an empire wouldn't be down directing individual ships and that having tactical combat wouldn't fit into the strategic focus of the game?

What handwaving claims? As I already pointed out, you named examples that weren't modern and in one case just plain wrong. It doesn't happen in the modern age, and there's no reason to expect it to change in the future. In fact, even less so, unless we have some form of broadband instantaneous communication at interstellar range. Besides, it's hardly the only issue at hand.

I want to see you bite on how the leader of an empire would stoop down to designing military vehicles. Like I said before, sorta on par with the POTUS designing military vehicles for the US military. How many of you want to remove ship design because it clashes with the notion that the leader of an empire wouldn't be designing ships?

Actually, that was a much better example of your point than the resources, but still, let's see how many different ways does starship design differ from tactical combat.

Lets go by the concerns raised in my post #73 above.

1) Does the feature take away from the focus of the game, which is empire management?

While at war, I'll spend a small fraction of my time in GC2 designing new ships. While playing MoO2, I'd spend more time looking at the Tactical Combat screen than everything else put together. Tactical Combat is more intrusive. And yes, we could use quick resolve, and I'd be perfectly willing to do so if the AI were up to the job, but that's point 2.

2) Can the AI deal with the feature?

Since there's no tactical combat, the AI is capable of dealing with ship design, though Brad thinks it could do a little bit better. Adding tactical combat means that ship design becomes much more critical. Combining the two is where you get into problems with tactical AIs. Here, you're the one doing the handwaving, saying that "it would be great if they could" or "I don't care if the AI is good." Accept that some do care, and the people you're asking to do the work are probably at the top of that list.

3) What is the cost of the feature in developer resources?

Well, removing a feature that has already been developed isn't going to recover any developer resources. A cheesy way for ship design to win on this point, but it's the reality of where things stand right now.

My point which you failed to grasp was that the Fallout tactical combat model is better and more up to date than the MOO one.

My point which you failed to grasp is that the tactical model itself has nothing to do with any of the issues above. How does a better tactical model address any of those issues? It might make tactical combat more fun, but if it doesn't address those issues, it's a moot point.

If you anti-tactical guys don't want resources spent on tactical combat then what do you want it spent on? I haven't seen anyone mention anything specific other than a month of Brad's time polishing the strategic AI. Well, guys, there's 10 months till Xmas, 9 if you take away one month for Brad to polish the strategic AI; plenty of time for more enhancements.

Heard of Society? I'll bet Brad's going to be fairly busy with that game, seeing as it's due to launch in a year or so and is going to need some AI work. Or the Political Machine 2008. Stardock isn't a one-game company, after all. With everything else going on, Brad and the rest of Stardock is going to be busy for the next year, with or without an expansion pack.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Fine the point the "great strategic gamers" -- don't let me smile...don't want tacticl battle...i can live with that...but is is not very strategic to take away tactic that means it is not realy a good strategical game YOU CAN'T CONQUER THE GALACTIC only in a strategic way EVERY battle IS tactical if you like it or not.

Some pro-tactic-persons here say before and i also: the great strategicals here will spend hours to create ships...nice..thing but without any effect..do you mean you will look at any AI-only-controllt battle to see your creating, namend ships fight? why? looks great? yes perhaps 1 or 10 times than you feel that is realy obsolet to see samething you can't control...without tactical battle what realy means to be able to create ships?

I can understand and accept that it is very complicate to make a good AI for tactical battle
so one question...the AI creat own ships??? No?? than the AI will loose every game
or the AI creat own ships put weappons engies and deff systems like it want...there must be a idear behind..than you lead the AI fighting....so the AI make for both side the dessissions but on the atherside you say there is no tactical battle ...for the AI it is even when the possibiletys are very smal.

To see Tecumsee not a a leader of a empire looks like you are american and so i don't wondering..to exterminate Alexander, Xerxes, or earlyer leaders from the argumentation looks like you ignor wan't you can't answer.
Oh yes you miss the point and say's nothing to Bonapart or the russian zar.
I can countig more of leader's they also fight ...but the most of them are not creating battleships only one that was Peter the Great Zar of Russia..but he only copy the netherland-ships btw...
Shaka Zulu was for you i think also not the leader of an empire and so on

YOU miss the point the most leaders controll sometimes tactical..this was the reason germany lost the war
and in a galactic empire with hypercomunication it is not nessassary that the Leader in personality by the fleet.

You don't know your own histrorie??? Gen. Washington was one leader of the americans...you allready have him after the war against the english crown as 1. president dosen't matter that he than don't go to battlefiled anymore he was old and ill...

Anyway Stardock will not make a tactical combat...this is pitty but i can accept it without harm but the "great strategic gamers" here are of course not so good than they think they all don't realy know what means: strategic and tactic you cant splitt

Successfully updated karma reason!

What handwaving claims? As I already pointed out, you named examples that weren't modern and in one case just plain wrong. It doesn't happen in the modern age, and there's no reason to expect it to change in the future. In fact, even less so, unless we have some form of broadband instantaneous communication at interstellar range. Besides, it's hardly the only issue at hand.

I see no problems in my argument that there's been a lot of handwaving in order to excuse selected abstractions. As far as this point is concerned your argument against the leader of an empire taking direct control of ships is just wrong. I can see how you'd like to dismiss this as an issue since you've lost this point of the discussion.

I'm not handwaving at all. To me having tactical combat is a good thing. You already have good quick combat resolution. The AI currently works for this. You have your button and I'd like to have my option of tactical combat as well. Why do you care about my button if you're never going to use it? Oh, resources taken away from development of other improvements, of which you have no clue what you want, other than another month of Brad's time polishing the AI. Your hands, on the other hand are waving because you'd like to hold GalCiv2 to an absolute standard of no tactical ship control by the leader but then excuse the fact that the leader designs his own ships. How could you live with a game that doesn't abide strictly by your idea of how low an emperor should stoop? It's hypocritical to hold features wanted by other people to strict standards of what and emperor should or should not control when a feature you enjoy, such as ship design, isn't held to the same standards.

My mention of the Fallout combat model was more for Brad than for you. You've obviously never played the game and so have no idea what I'm talking about. In a nutshell, it's a tactical combat system that incorporates ranged weaponary, skills and armor that was straightforward and worked well. They also had a quick resolve button as well for those times you didn't want to control the fight.

Heard of Society? I'll bet Brad's going to be fairly busy with that game, seeing as it's due to launch in a year or so and is going to need some AI work. Or the Political Machine 2008. Stardock isn't a one-game company, after all. With everything else going on, Brad and the rest of Stardock is going to be busy for the next year, with or without an expansion pack.

Look, bottom line is Brad has pledged to deliver an expansion pack by Xmas and I believe him. Unless you're his secretary, bringing up other stuff Stardock is working on is sophistry. You've no clue what you want from the expansion other than a month of Brad's time working on the strategic AI. Bottomline, GalCiv2 is Stardock's biggest, most popular game and probably going to be the biggest moneymaker of the year. I know that you, me and most of the other guys on this forum aren't going to be buying Society or any of the other stuff.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Some pro-tactic-persons here say before and i also: the great strategicals here will spend hours to create ships...nice..thing but without any effect..do you mean you will look at any AI-only-controllt battle to see your creating, namend ships fight? why? looks great? yes perhaps 1 or 10 times than you feel that is realy obsolet to see samething you can't control...without tactical battle what realy means to be able to create ships?

Well, you don't need to have a tactical battle to make ship design meaningful. Ship design allow you:
- to choose the range of your ships. So some ships (like colony ship or constructor) can go deeper into space when other don't need it (constructor build to improve existing starbase or ships orbiting planet to defend it)
- the speed of the engine. You can build fast raider/scout unit or don't put any engine for defender ship
- the sensor range. You can build AWACS style ships, that allows to monitor ennemy ships in ennemy territories while your ship is safe behind your lines
- build transport, constructor, freighter, colony ship as well as defining their holding capabities
- build combat ships (choosing kind of weapon and kind of defense)

And all the previous things are strategically oriented: how do you plan to expand, how do you plan to handle the ennemy, where do you plan to fight battles. So being able to create ship have a real meaning in GC2 even without tactical combat.

But I guess that it would be better that everyone plays GC2 to ensure that we are all on equal ground with GC2 mechanisms and the usefulness of the various features.

so one question...the AI creat own ships??? No?? than the AI will loose every game
or the AI creat own ships put weappons engies and deff systems like it want...there must be a idear behind..than you lead the AI fighting....so the AI make for both side the dessissions but on the atherside you say there is no tactical battle ...for the AI it is even when the possibiletys are very smal.

Have your read the various journal entries made by Brad. It shows clearly that the AI is adapting its design to overcome ships it must fight. And Brad had stated that he was sometimes wondering why the AI did choose to make some specific research. BTW, there isn't any intelligence in the current battle resolution: you just have rules, followed by both sides telling how to determine the target at which the ship must fired, and how damage are calculated. There isn't any tactical AI involved. It is like playing cards where the only thing you can do is to turn up the card on the top of your stack and see how it compares with the one turned up by your opponenent.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heh, thats another thing indeed.
The name of this thread is 'tactical combat IN EXPANSION'.

What indeed do you want in an expansion?
an extra race? more ship graphics? new campagin is a given.
Personally I want things that actually add to the value of the game and make me want to play it more. not little embellishments.
That means things like interesting tactical combat and multiplayer support.

You keep saying 'well that can't happen because of the way combat works in the game' .. duh.
the game as it is of now, not the game as it can be in an expansion. better, broader, more inclusive but mainly MORE FUN for a huge number of ppl who once played moo2 or fallout or whatever and don't understand why they're having to watch the same damned movies instead of telling this ship to fire at this ship.

Tactical control has been part of gaming for so long and in such an intense way that gamers are used to it being a feature.. now, to many people, leaving out a feature feels more like 'taking it out' rather than not incorporating it to begin with (which is the reason for these threads and debates, so you can't tell me I'm bullshittin

).

It's the progress in gaming.
once it was all number crunching and numerical inputs, but would you honestly release an FPS game with graphics from 10 years ago and an interface that doesn't support mouse use and expect it to be a smash hit?
There are just things that gamers now expect from their games because they've been included and refined over time and have been well liked enough to be considered by some completely obvious, to the point of shocked surprised on finding that its not included (how many threads were there going 'WHAT? NO TACTICAL COMBAT??!?').

It's a bummer that puritan arguments regarding resource allocation in game development in effect argue to reduce the popularity and success of the game

Successfully updated karma reason!

Have your read the various journal entries made by Brad. It shows clearly that the AI is adapting its design to overcome ships it must fight. And Brad had stated that he was sometimes wondering why the AI did choose to make some specific research. BTW, there isn't any intelligence in the current battle resolution: you just have rules, followed by both sides telling how to determine the target at which the ship must fired, and how damage are calculated. There isn't any tactical AI involved. It is like playing cards where the only thing you can do is to turn up the card on the top of your stack and see how it compares with the one turned up by your opponenent.

LoL the programmer is wondering that the AI takes spec. research to creat ships they can overcome the enemie they have to fight against...sound like some indipendent intilligence inside the AI...but... to make it very easy for you to understand my position : When you have one ship with missels and shilds...your ship is also the attacer..first hit you have 2 opponent ship's one with beams as off-and shild as deff- the ather has guns and big armor ...at witch ship will the AI open fire and on witch ship i will fire can be diffrent...or the AI is rolles for what ship it will attacing first?--- for sure i have to take out the gun/armor-ship it will make more hits against my ship:

My missels will give all there damage to both of the ships becourse they have no point deff.

...-but my shilds only can hold same hit's from the Beam/shild-enemie but it hold samething
against the gun's of the gun/armor ship are so helpless than they against my missel
..so the solution is clear i have to take auf the 2. one gun-armor at first very easy..i am not sure that the AI will "think" like me..or will only roll a cube

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heh, thats another thing indeed.
The name of this thread is 'tactical combat IN EXPANSION'.

let them they are american the most can't read or want to read what they don't wan't to see...the some who can read and understand the point without to ignore it...are short mindet and they will fight even they know that the athers are right and finaley the one or two openmindet americans are allready leaving the country after mr. bush take place in the oval office

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heh, thats another thing indeed.
The name of this thread is 'tactical combat IN EXPANSION'.

let them they are american the most can't read or want to read what they don't wan't to see...the some who can read and understand the point without to ignore it...are short mindet and they will fight even they know that the athers are right and finaley the one or two openmindet americans are allready leaving the country after mr. bush take place in the oval office

Since I am targetted, I must add that I am not american and I leave in Europe (but you could have guessed it from my profile)

What indeed do you want in an expansion?
an extra race? more ship graphics? new campagin is a given.
Personally I want things that actually add to the value of the game and make me want to play it more. not little embellishments.

Well, I am pretty sure that some people want a multiplayer expansion.

It's a bummer that puritan arguments regarding resource allocation in game development in effect argue to reduce the popularity and success of the game

Well, if it is like GC1, you will have a full year of free update, including one free expansion. After that, you may have a non-free expansion. So you must have a budget, the time and the people to do those expansion. But Stardock doesn't have unlimited budget and unlimited ressources. BTW, I don't understand the meaning of "puritans arguments".

You keep saying 'well that can't happen because of the way combat works in the game' .. duh.
the game as it is of now, not the game as it can be in an expansion. better, broader, more inclusive but mainly MORE FUN for a huge number of ppl who once played moo2 or fallout or whatever and don't understand why they're having to watch the same damned movies instead of telling this ship to fire at this ship.

Well, I don't think that the definition of an expansion is to dramatically change the way a game is played or the balance of the game. But I could be wrong. And you aren't forced to watch those "damned movies", there is an option to toggle it

Tactical control has been part of gaming for so long and in such an intense way that gamers are used to it being a feature.. now, to many people, leaving out a feature feels more like 'taking it out' rather than not incorporating it to begin with

Well, if the emphasis is put on tactical combat, it is normal. But unless I am mistaken, CIV 4 as no tactical combat. And I don't think that people are thinking it has been taken out. So why should it be different with GC 2?

Successfully updated karma reason!

but... to make it very easy for you to understand my position : When you have one ship with missels and shilds...your ship is also the attacer..first hit you have 2 opponent ship's one with beams as off-and shild as deff- the ather has guns and big armor ...at witch ship will the AI open fire and on witch ship i will fire can be diffrent...or the AI is rolles for what ship it will attacing first?--- for sure i have to take out the gun/armor-ship it will make more hits against my ship:

My missels will give all there damage to both of the ships becourse they have no point deff.

...-but my shilds only can hold same hit's from the Beam/shild-enemie but it hold samething
against the gun's of the gun/armor ship are so helpless than they against my missel
..so the solution is clear i have to take auf the 2. one gun-armor at first very easy..i am not sure that the AI will "think" like me..or will only roll a cube

Ok,let see if I have everything correct:
attacking side: one ship, missile/shield
defending side: 2 ships, one beam/shield and one gun/armor
Which ship should be targeted by the attacking ship?

I think the rule is to target the deadlier than can be destroyed the sooner. So I guess that it would target gun/armor. But I don't know how the characteristics are evaluated.

In any case, there isn't an AI behind the combat, just rules to evaluated which ship should be targeted. The AI in GC2 is to design efficiently ships that will be able to win battles.

And when choosing a feature to implement, Stardock had many times stated that:
- it should increase the enjoyement and not the burden on the player => avoid too much micromanagement
- it should be possible to thave the AI handle it correctly => avoid loophole and exploit
- it should fit in the budget => that is the reason for which a choice has been made between ship design and multiplayer for GC2

Successfully updated karma reason!

kryo

Join Date 05/2003

+458

let them they are american the most can't read or want to read what they don't wan't to see...the some who can read and understand the point without to ignore it...are short mindet and they will fight even they know that the athers are right and finaley the one or two openmindet americans are allready leaving the country after mr. bush take place in the oval office

Nothing enhances your argument like personal attacks. Oh yeah, and the lack of tactical combat in GC2 is Bush's fault.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Can't take this "discussion" serious anymore. Tactical combat isn't in the game, for good reasons, and it will almost sure never be in. If some people don't get this point - having played the game not even a single time - then so be it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lord Doom, are you trying to make this thread a flame war against Americans? You need cheap opportunities to make your political jabs? Making generalizations about Americans isn't necessary in this thread, or any on this forum for that matter. Perhaps it is you that can't read because you just brag about your knowledge of history, but miss the point. Basically you are saying that...

Leaders in the past were often in charge of tactical decissions, and therefore should be in charge in CGII.

Yes, I am sure you can find countless examples of military leaders making tactical decissions. I am an American, and I will agree with you 100% on this. But just because this may be true, doesn't mean it must be included in this game to achieve total realism. Here is perhaps the #1 reason why people don't want tactical in the game, so read carefully.

THE COMPUTER WILL DEFINATELY BE VASTLY INFERIOR TO THE HUMAN

Because of this simple truth, tactical combat ends up consuming the game. It will have so much affect on the outcome of every game, that it will become the game. Civ has no tactical combat, and it is one of the most popular game in history. This game is in the same class as Civ. Tactical combat has it's place in many games available. But it just doens't belong in this one.

If we are going to use history, then let it show why tactical should not be included. Take the US Civil war for example. The North was hugely superior in weapons manufacturing, finances, and perhaps most importantly numbers of soldiers available. However, what seemed like a lopsided war became a long drawn out one because of tactics. Many Confederate generals were outstanding, while there Northern counterpars were inept. So this brings up my point. The human can be in charge of a weakling nation and still be ultimabely victorious due to the fact that he can almost certainly win every tactical battle. And worse, if he is in charge of a powerful nation then he will win with the greatest of ease. The Human will always be General Lee, and the computer will always be McClellan.

As the game stands, there are rigid rules to every engagement. There is no thought givin to range of weapons, so if there was tactical, it would simply be clicking on your ships and assigning a target. Yes, it would give you the opportunity to ensure your lasers fire at someone without shealds. However, chances are that at least early on in the game you will be focusing on one type of attack and defence anyway. And due to the fact that this game focuses on the overall strategy instead of tactical strategy, then it is your responsibility to assign the right ships to do battle with right enemy on a strategic level instead.

Why do we care about your button even though it could be turned off? That has been addressed so many times that anyone who can read carefully will understand.

It takes away resources from developement of other aspects of the game that are more suiting, and tactical battles will be too easy, and therefore the game becomes too easy.

Multiplayer is a popular choice for these resources. Also, the strategic AI could be even further refined (because that is actually a somewhat attainable goal). If I had a say, I would want there to be a more detailed method for planetary assault. I'm sure there are so many possibilities that wouldn't dramatically alter the game in the same way that tactical combat would.

I know that some people want tactical combat, and that is understandable. However, consider the Civ series. It has definately withsood the test of time. It is really the only one of its kind. Tactical games are a dime a dozen. CGII offers a Civ style game with some noted improvements. I believe the most exciting of which is a decent strategic AI. If tactical combat was included, the people who sought this game out specifically would become disheartened and end up leaving it. Those that like tactical combat would be happy untill the next tactical game came around.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I can see how you'd like to dismiss this as an issue since you've lost this point of the discussion.

I must have a stealth 4th issue in post #73 that I'm not seeing, unless you're assuming it's part of issue 1. I was attacking the argument on the subject. I didn't raise that issue. And it's far from lost, we're just failing to agree to disagree.

I'm not handwaving at all. To me having tactical combat is a good thing. You already have good quick combat resolution.

Once again, yes, it works, and it's fair. Adding tactical combat would let me click a button to have a quick fair fight, or if the AI isn't up to snuff, a way to have a longer, less fair fight (fair to the AI), which breaks this. Some of us are anal enough to do that even if it's not fun because we want every non-exploit advantage we can get. It's our play style. And don't try to argue that somehow yours is more pure. Noone's play style is more pure (arguably excluding exploit-driven play styles).

In fact, I'm actually not against tactical combat. Just address those 3 issues that I did mention, and I won't mind. I won't use it, but that's not the same as being against it. I'd just rather they worked on things that I do care about.

My mention of the Fallout combat model was more for Brad than for you. You've obviously never played the game and so have no idea what I'm talking about. In a nutshell, it's a tactical combat system that incorporates ranged weaponary, skills and armor that was straightforward and worked well. They also had a quick resolve button as well for those times you didn't want to control the fight.

Again, how does that affect any of the three issues I've raised? Granted, handling issue 2 and 3 makes issue 1 moot.

Bottomline, GalCiv2 is Stardock's biggest, most popular game and probably going to be the biggest moneymaker of the year. I know that you, me and most of the other guys on this forum aren't going to be buying Society or any of the other stuff.

Maybe the biggest moneymaker of the year of their games, but seeing as games are only about a quarter of their revenue, not their biggest moneymaker overall.

You know I'm not going to be buying Society? You're dead wrong, I want it as much as I want GC2. Of course, buying it won't be necessary, since it's a FREE MMORTS. It's going to be a very big thing to Stardock, a publicity act to raise awareness of Stardock in the general gaming community.

You're right, I'm not Brad's secretary, but I don't need to be. Those things I mentioned aren't something I have to predict, it's what Brad and the other devs have said in the developer's journals and in IRC. I'm not the one claiming that they'll be working on other projects, they are. In fact, you might be shocked to read that after GC2 launches, most of the team working on GC2 is moving to Society.

Can't take this "discussion" serious anymore.

Agreed, established, just about any sane rational person would have stopped reading, let alone posting, at least a day ago. Maybe I need to take my meds

Still, I'll hang around here until misophist answers the question as to how a better tactical model would improve the AI's ability to play that portion of the game or reduce the development time needed, as I am actually interested.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Well, I don't think that the definition of an expansion is to dramatically change the way a game is played or the balance of the game. But I could be wrong. And you aren't forced to watch those "damned movies", there is an option to toggle it "

Happily, you are wrong. otherwise nobody would ever make expansions.
Practically all RTS and TBS game expansions add new races/new units/new features that radically alter game balance.
Even FPS expansions add new weapons and whatever that alters multiplayer gameplay.

"Well, if the emphasis is put on tactical combat, it is normal. But unless I am mistaken, CIV 4 as no tactical combat. And I don't think that people are thinking it has been taken out. So why should it be different with GC 2"

That would necessitate comparing civ4 to gal2, which is impossible.
Civ4 is established with a HUGE HUGE INCREDIBLY HUGE fanbase, and has been like it is since forever and isn't trying to target fan groups from other games.

gal2 is a much much smaller production, with an infinitely smaller fanbase and publicity, and its target audience is people who play space TBS games. IE players who come from moo2 etc, where tactical combat is a given.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Happily, you are wrong. otherwise nobody would ever make expansions.
Practically all RTS and TBS game expansions add new races/new units/new features that radically alter game balance.
Even FPS expansions add new weapons and whatever that alters multiplayer gameplay.

Still, throwing out the existing combat system and replacing it with something incompatible is quite a bit more extreme than adding new units/weapons/abilities. How many games can you think of that have gone that far? I think the farthest anyone has gone was to change from ordered turns to simultaneous turns when adding multiplayer.

That would necessitate comparing civ4 to gal2, which is impossible.

In that case, the impossible has been happening in the GC1 forums for years. GC1 is considered more closely related to Civ than MoO, to the point that when someone asks what it's like people would answer "Civ in space," not "MoO without tactical combat." I still don't see that changing for GC2, though it's crept a little closer to MoO.

gal2 is a much much smaller production, with an infinitely smaller fanbase and publicity, and its target audience is people who play space TBS games. IE players who come from moo2 etc, where tactical combat is a given.

I think one difference between GalCiv (1 and 2) and Civ/MoO is that GalCiv doesn't exist to make money. Yes, covering the expenses is necessary to produce the game, but the reason it exists is because of Brad's passion for it, so anything past covering the expenses is a bonus. I seem to recall reading somewhere that he wrote most/all of the OS/2 version himself. I also seem to recall reading that they never really expected to make much money on GC1, they were mostly looking to cover their expenses. All in all, I don't think the motivation behind GalCiv is quite what you think it is.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think making money is one of the major goals of GalCiv. They just haven't managed to do it yet.

I'd actually never heard of MoO until I heard it discussed in the GalCiv forums, but yeah, GalCiv is basically a Civ game (obviously). I don't see how they've managed to not get accused of a trademark violation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

From what I've heard, GC1 profits paid for GC2 development expenses, so I was under the impression GC1 had made money, even if not in large quantities. And yes, more money is good, no denying it, I was referring more to the primary motivation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hm. I was under the impression that the Strategy First fiasco ate up most if not all of the profits, since they only got paid for copies purchased directly from their website.

Or maybe it was AP financing GC2? I forget... Frogboy, how about posting a detailed report of all your company's financial data?

How about we include "tactical" combat, but limit it to what the game mechanics currently allow? The AI still attacks the ships it normally would, but the human can choose which enemy ship to attack with each shot. That would be simple enough that someone who does it manually wouldn't have any advantage over someone who leaves it on auto, and it'll mollify the tactical proponents at least enough to stop this thread in its tracks.*

*This is in no way meant to condone the devotion of development resources to a feature that is out of proportion to that feature's demand to satisfy a small number of forum posters. This is just meant to say that doing such a thing would not ruin the game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Some of us are anal enough to do that even if it's not fun because we want every non-exploit advantage we can get. It's our play style. And don't try to argue that somehow yours is more pure. Noone's play style is more pure (arguably excluding exploit-driven play styles).

I never said your play style was wrong. What you've been doing is making generalizations about why people want tactical battles. No one wants to impose their desire for tactical combat on you. Just hit the quick resolve button. Try not to be so anal about how other people want to play the game.

Again, how does that affect any of the three issues I've raised? Granted, handling issue 2 and 3 makes issue 1 moot.

Exactly, proper implementation would make it work. As for programmer resource hogging, you don't even know what else you want improved other than another month of Brad's time on the strategic AI. Some have mentinoed multiplay but like Brad has mentioned before, probably less than 1% want multiplay. I suspect that the population wanting a tactical combat option is far greater. Probably more than 50%.

Still, I'll hang around here until misophist answers the question as to how a better tactical model would improve the AI's ability to play that portion of the game or reduce the development time needed, as I am actually interested.

Well, you'll forgive me if I decline your enticement to attack this strawman as I've never professed those points you mention.

Adding tactical combat would enhance the game and win more customers. Why do you think they added ship design? If you followed any of the discussions on GalCiv1, Brad was always against ship design as well but somehow reconsidered for GalCiv2. If it really is too hard to add for GalCiv2 I anticipate the addition of tactical combat for GalCiv3.

Successfully updated karma reason!

How about we include "tactical" combat, but limit it to what the game mechanics currently allow? The AI still attacks the ships it normally would, but the human can choose which enemy ship to attack with each shot. That would be simple enough that someone who does it manually wouldn't have any advantage over someone who leaves it on auto, and it'll mollify the tactical proponents at least enough to stop this thread in its tracks.

Better yet, if you choose to play with tactical battles, preclude use of the score in the metaverse. I know some are very anal about their scores.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Can't take this "discussion" serious anymore. Tactical combat isn't in the game, for good reasons, and it will almost sure never be in. If some people don't get this point - having played the game not even a single time - then so be it.

Actually I played quite a bit of GalCiv1. It got boring quickly because of the lack of ship design and tactical battles. Civ, whether in space or on a planet gets old after a while. Tactical combat can and has been implemented in a workable fashion where the computer AI isn't disadvantaged as can be seen with the Fallout series.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Multiplayer is a popular choice for these resources. Also, the strategic AI could be even further refined (because that is actually a somewhat attainable goal). If I had a say, I would want there to be a more detailed method for planetary assault. I'm sure there are so many possibilities that wouldn't dramatically alter the game in the same way that tactical combat would.

I think the demand for multiplay is very low. Brad has mentioned something like 1% of users or less want or would use this feature.

A more detailed planetary assault may be interesting but I wouldn't want tactical combat for every square of every planet. That'd be ridiculous.

I have to disagree that tactical combat would radically alter the game. I think it would only enhance the gameplay.

Successfully updated karma reason!

No one wants to impose their desire for tactical combat on you. Just hit the quick resolve button. Try not to be so anal about how other people want to play the game.

Well, personnaly, having played MOO, MOO2, MOM, HOMM 2, 3 and 4, I rarely used the quick resolve/auto battle since I knew I can do a better job than the tactical AI on these games. So if tactical battles appear in any GC, I perfectly knew that I will play the tactical battle since I knew it will raise the odds to crush the AI and win the game.

That is why I think that tactical combat would really alter the game. I knew that I will feel obligated to play those battles to get an edge on the AI.

Successfully updated karma reason!