the hero/leader will add to single player gameplay if done right.

tactical combat though..
maybe it'll come when multiplayer option is around (aka galciv3 or galciv4) due to the difficulty in balancing AI to compete with players. Of course, i'm sure stardock can figure out the optimal configuration at all time for the AI, but that really wouldn't be fun anymore.


Lastly.. i wonder if stardock is tired of people suggesting them to do something from MoO or Civ.. especially over and over.

While it is a good idea to borrow certain aspects from other games.. if you borrow everything from a game, it would only become a clone. It would be good if galciv can explore its own field and emphasize on what they have that other games don't have.

I would say tactical combat in GalCiv II is a horrible horrible idea, however that's just fanatical fanboyism talking. The thing is, I'm really just neutral on it to begin with, it wouldn't effect my enjoyment either way.

The thing is, we DO determine the outcome of battles, we determine the outcome of each and every battle by designing, building, gathering, and maneuvering fleets into (or away from) battles where they can either achieve victory or accomplish an objective. We do in a sense take control in tactical battle, because we SEE how effective our ships are, plus we get to see the ships we decorated maneuver in combat without the distraction of controlling them. Then, we take the information from that battle and it effects the next battle we choose to enter. (edit: even if you don't =choose= the next battle, it still teaches you to mount better engines which will effect the war from then on)

If they could instantly institute controllable combat (turn-based I would hope but that's besides the point), and make it 100% bug-free, and it wouldn't take time away from making the rest of the game better, then okay fine I wouldn't mind it. But that just isn't how things are. The reason all the 'fanboys' are so defensive is they don't want to crash 10% more often or wait three months longer for a given feature just so people can have a completely pointless "MoO Too" feature.

I love the combat in Moo2, but I'd say no on it in galciv2.

I would like to see some form of leaders though.

The problem with Tactical Combat in strategy games like MOO2/GalCiv/Etc. is that it's to easy to exploit. Once the players figure out how the AI behaves they can easily take advantage of it and do things the AI would never think of or be able to counter. One thing that often happens is the Hit and Run tactic. Ships are loaded with missles and the player fired them off while falling back to the edge of the map out of attack range of the AI. This was a HUGE bug in MOO3 when players designed ships with one shot missle launchers entered combat fired off the salvo then hit retreat knowing the missles would reach the enemy before they finished withdrawing and killing a chunk of the forces. Allowing them to be effectively invunerable.

No matter how hard you try to balance tactical combat until they perfect true AI there is little chance you can make a workable balanced system that a good human player wouldn't be able to find a tactic or weakness in AI they can exploit to their advantage. Which then just leads to having to make the AI cheat like giving them more ships or better ships. Even in MOO2 which was about as closely balanced as it could of been there were lots of easy tactics to fair better against the computer like for one focus on a single ship and take it out quick. The AI often spread it's fire power around making it less effective. I'm not going to go into any more detail but there was a ship design in MOO2 you could make that could take on Hundreds of Doomstar vessels by itself in tactical yet if you ran it in strat mode it wouldn't fair so well. Personally I loved the tact combat in MOO2 but I don't think it's for this game.

Well speaking from the point of view of both an RTS and TBS lover, i wouldn't mind seeing Homeworld2 style tactical combat in a game like this, OBVIOUSLY with an auto-resolve option for those not so inclined. that way both sides are served. And ground combat for that matter. BUT obviously that would make it another game, not galciv2, so it's not like i'm expecting, or asking for that matter, for that in this game. I'm just saying a game like GalCiv2 with those features would be welcomed by me.

The thing that really diappoints me is that you cant make purposals in the united planet council. Like in Moo3, even though that game sucked, i liked that feature. instead of one only being able to vote and not suggest new law/purposals for the council.
I miss that, but can see how it could be a maybe too powerful tool.

I hate tactical battles. It makes the game draaaaag because the "auto-resolve" button makes you suck in every battle.

If the game would use statistics of past battles to determine what auto-resolve would do, that'd be fun. Otherwise, it's a fucking drag to fight every single battle, even with 10 to 1 odds.

I absolutely hated the changes in research from Moo1 to Moo2. For the love of Zarquan, please don't include anything like it in GC.

does anyone remember the ability to creat planets out of chunks of asterouds in the solar system. That was SWEEET!!!

I would definately like to see the varied racial advantages /disadvantages from MOO II. If not the exact same set, more game changing Racial abilities.

Because making a tactical combat module takes away massive resources that could improve the strategic side of the game,err like improved spying system,better A.I,ect..

Understand?

I absolutely hated the changes in research from Moo1 to Moo2. For the love of Zarquan, please don't include anything like it in GC.

My sentiment exactly. Compared to MoO the battles in MoO2 were horrific - actually compared to the first one the sequel was quit bad in most regards. The heroes were a nice touch though - the idea was entirely ripped off from 'Master of Magic' but a nice touch none the less.