for the person who didnt understand number 3, I was talking about adding more things to combat than just atk, def and hp. also when saying ecm pulse, I meant emp device not another def thing. they are things that can work for autocombat aswell examples: -a emp wpn than neutralize the enemy for 1-3 turns but can only be used once per combat(can only be put on medium-large hulls), the a.i will be programmed to use this on the ship with highest hp+def or hp+atk. -a device that makes it so theres a chance the enemy shots will be reflected back onto itself(endgame device and has low chance of working). -a cloaking device that makes the ships who were attacked invisible only for the first turn, that way these ships always get the first attack(although it will take alot of space)

Bah, galactic rulers concern themselves not with minor petty details. Galactic rulers should view in the grand scheme of things (strategy). The tactical combat is gibberish and blasphemy for strategies.

With that said, the galactic ruler will gladly hire you when the need comes for a tactician.


Anyway, I would believe the point of the simplified version of attack/def/hp is just so a player wouldn't have to micromanage every aspect. This means we assume that ecm jammer is already some kind of defense wired into the ship when the ship get that missile defense and that's why the ship is not taking as much damage as it normally would. I guess we as players will have to use our imagination and assume that the missiles are being jammed and such.

Maybe people should demand Galactic Civilization - Tactics where the player assume the role of a military general/leader.

The game will emphasize on 1) weapon development 2) ship building 3) tactical combat 4) multiplayer

I personally think, that at least ONE GAME in this world, concentrate on bieng SINGLE PLAYER ONLY, without tactical battles, so to concentarte on what makes the game the game, and FUN!
If CGII attempts to do this, GREAT! That way, for this "genre" of a game, it can be maximized, and enjoyed by those you want JUST THAT in a game, nothing more.
MULTIPLAYER-okay, play something else.
TACTCIAL- okay , play a different game.
At least one time, for one game, if I saw an ad stating "dedicated single-player, with more strategic then tactical focus", in space, turn-based, I'd check it out. Even just for a "breather"
THEN, as it turns out, CGII is an awesome game anyway!
That's my <.02 worth..

I personally would like tactical combat, both in space and on the ground.

I've never understood why people don't like other people having more options. Me, I suck at strategic games, having tactical combat would allow me to play a game without cheating. If you feel it's an exploit, then don't use it.

That said, I don't think it would work very well in GC, because the ships aren't designed like they were in Moo2. That borrowed heavily from board starship games, and had things like firing arcs and such. And the weapons in GC2 aren't granular enough - most weapons do what, 1-5 points of damage? Hit points are pretty low, too.

Actually, in it's defense, it's more of a Civ ripoff. I mean, it's called "Galactic Civilizations"

I agree, more control with battles would be fantastic. Moo2 had that nailed.

Shipyard refits, i.e. instead of paying cash to "upgrade" I can have a shipyard do it using military production.

In Diplomacy, I'd like see a "What will you offer me for this?" option along with a "What do you want for this?" option. Also, when trading technology, offering a technology that has prequisites should add the prerequisites they don't have automatically; and they should be removed as a group too. I don't like the AI complaining that I don't have the technologies straight when it should NOT be MY job to keep them straight.