Galatic_Civilization and Space_Empires

Screenshots for the Space Empires V game have been released.
Here: http://www.captainkwok.net/feature-se5screenshots.php


Space_Empires_V will have tactical battles and multiplayer. I'm interested in both of these games, but haven't played either one yet.


What are the benefits of each game?
46,895 views 28 replies
Reply #1 Top
I, too, am eragerly awaiting Space Empires 5. Check it out. Link

Reply #2 Top
(Sing to the tune of Everlasting Fruitcake)

It's the trrraaavveeellllinnnggg salesman!
Just as soon as he posts he will disappear...
Reply #3 Top
Nice try with the viral marketing. Lame!
Reply #4 Top
It looks very..........cheesy
Reply #5 Top
Hmmm Strategy First! is their publisher! Yikes Good Luck....
Reply #6 Top
Greetings.

I would recommend that you get both games. No reason not to. Each game (although SE:V is not out yet) has its own gameplay niche that can satisfy your 4X needs.

You can try Space Empires IV (available in some stores and online, $20 US) which will be somewhat similar to SE:V in terms of overall gameplay. SE:V probably won't be out until late this year.

Space Empires V has moved from turn-based combat to real-time combat, although it remains a turn-based strategy game in every other sense.
Reply #7 Top
It's the trrraaavveeellllinnnggg salesman!
Just as soon as he posts he will disappear...


Obviously he doesn't read the forums that often. I've made many posts in these forums several requesting multiplayer functionality. Looks like some gamers are open minded and interested in other space type games and some are the opposite. It's funny to see some people judging a game even tho it hasn't even been released yet.

Personally I first wait to see what the game reviewers rate the game(the reviews of thousands of actual gamers), second I will play the demo a few times, third I will check the forum topics and only then make a decision.

~ A wise king considers all of his options, and then makes his decision.
MacBeth Shakespeare
Reply #8 Top
The user Wade is a newbie to the main Space Empirs forums as well. He's just excited about the game and a little eager to spread his joy.

NT Jedi, you can also get the SE:IV demo to try if you'd like to try that as well. Like I mentioned before it has many of the elements that will be carried over to SE:V, so you can get some of an idea what the gameplay is like.

I'd probably just buy GalCiv II if you know you like the depth and play of the Civ-type games.

On a side note, I can't seem to get my picture to display. I've added a 50x50 .JPG of 5 kb but it doesn't seem to add it.
Reply #9 Top
Obviously he doesn't read the forums that often. I've made many posts in these forums several requesting multiplayer functionality. Looks like some gamers are open minded and interested in other space type games and some are the opposite. It's funny to see some people judging a game even tho it hasn't even been released yet.

Personally I first wait to see what the game reviewers rate the game(the reviews of thousands of actual gamers), second I will play the demo a few times, third I will check the forum topics and only then make a decision.

~ A wise king considers all of his options, and then makes his decision.
MacBeth Shakespeare


Why are you talking about Space Empires in a forum created solely for the discussion for Galactic Civilizations 2? You must either be pretty dense not to post in the off-topic sections about this game, or a marketing offical for Strategy First.
Reply #10 Top
If I'm not mistaken, even some thing posted in "off topic" still shows in "everyting" and "recent posts". So his website is many streams that lead to one pool.
If you go to "everything" like most of us then you should not complain about what is there. Look at everything else that is there too...you might be "pretty dense" instead for ridiculling others.



-Wade

(Both Space Empires and Galactic Civilizations are great.)
Reply #11 Top
Why are you talking about Space Empires in a forum created solely for the discussion for Galactic Civilizations 2? You must either be pretty dense not to post in the off-topic sections about this game, or a marketing offical for Strategy First.


The topic was to compare the two games... to identify the pros and cons of each game thus not off-topic. I'm not sure how you missed the obvious considering the topic of the title. Since the topic includes Galactic Civilizations it is not off-topic.
Reply #12 Top
Until now, I never even heard of Space Empires. Well I never I head of Stardock and GalCiv until I saw these incredible reviews on them. I swear you guys need to brush up with the media.
Reply #13 Top
Back to the original post!
Space_Empires_V will have tactical battles and multiplayer. I'm interested in both of these games, but haven't played either one yet.


What are the benefits of each game?

SE5 isn't out yet, so who knows how it'll turn out? Graphically, it looks like it'll be quite an improvement over SE4 (which looked pretty bland). SE4 was an interesting game, so I'm looking forward to it.

GalCiv 2's advantages are mostly its AI/personality, which is excellent. Brad/Frogboy makes a big deal about GalCiv's AI, and it shows in the game...the diplomacy and the AI's ability to respond to situations is a league above MOO2 or SEIV (though those games have their own charms). Feedback is also good - if an AI empire likes/hates you, it's pretty easy to find out why. GalCiv 2 is definitely on top in that field.

The way you can customize your ship's look is a crowdpleaser, and I like the movies when you fight space battles (showing the ships you designed!), even if you can't do anything but watch. Unlike many space empire-type games, planets can also have more than one type of bonus, which is nice. I've always loved the random events and morality (I just wish they'd continue after researching Xeno Ethics, and that morality was affected by things other than random events). I also kinda like how the three weapon types have a rock/scissors/paper deal, although this also means they're pretty much the same. (In MOO2 or SE4, beams and missiles had unique advantages over each other...in GalCiv2, the only reason to pick one over another is to thwart what type of defense your enemy is using.) All the different victory types are nice, too.

The "infrastructure" of GalCiv 2 civilizations feel more realistic to me than most. In most games, you have your buildings/workers, and your money is an entirely different concern, disconnected from food/production/research. GalCiv 2 is the reverse - money is cultivated from your populations, and your buildings just determine how much production and research the money can get you. If you're not earning or spending anything, a whole planet full of factories won't help you. Thus, instead of specific buildings/workers, you're looking at budgets and allocation, which is how real leaders probably view their empire.

Finally, we also have to talk about support. GalCiv 2 is obviously very strong here, with designers continuing to update the game, and let's not forget the support for mods.

SE4 had its points too, though, most of which will probably carry over to SE5. Mod support was good here - all the game files used plain text, making things easy to modify.

SE4 had also tactical battles, which a lot of GalCiv 2 fans wish for. These battles weren't as polished in MOO2, but there was still a lot of strategy in designing ships. On top of basic weapons, engines, sensors, and range/supplies, there were computers, self-destruct, boarding marines, drones, fighters, satellites, and regeneration, on top of armor, point defense, and shields that all worked differently from each other. GalCiv 2 doesn't have these things, and I miss them.

The planets/star systems were also more interesting than most space games. SE4's systems actually resembled star systems, with asteroid belts, many different planets, and even surprises like nebula or black holes. The planets were also interesting...they had different types (rocky, iceball, gas giant) and atmospheres (hydrogen, oxygen, methane, none, etc). In GalCiv 2, a 20-point planet is great for everyone - human, yor, dread lord, whatever, they all like the same kind of environment. In SE4, a planet that's great for one race might suck for another, or be completely unusable. If your homeworld was rock/oxygen (like humans), you'd need a dome for a rock/hydrogen planet (sharply limiting how many facilities and population you can have there), and you couldn't colonize iceballs and gas giants at all. Interesting and realistic, IMO. In most empire games, you war against races to take their worlds, or keep them out of yours...here, if you're an iceball race, you might end up sharing systems with a gas giant race, since they're colonizing worlds you can't use anyway.

Speaking of races, SE4 race creation was interesting, too - there were the usual modifiers to production/research/weapons/whatever, but there was also the option to take unique tech trees that only your race can research - Organic Tech, Temporal, Psychic, Applied Religion, etc. I thought that was great. GalCiv 2 does a good job of giving races different personalities, but SE4 gave them unique capabilities.

Unfortunately, that was counterbalanced by how SE4 really sucked at diplomacy - there were a lot of things you could offer or propose, but the AI had no personality at all compared to GalCiv 2, and there was no way of determining why it liked or hated you, or refused your offers. You could be at war with a race for years, and their attitude would still shift to "Warm" or whatever. The tactics were vastly inferior, too. On the average level, you could blockade a warp point with dozens of killer satellites, and they'd still try to send pansy frigates through and get slaughtered, turn after turn. Not that the AI couldn't put up a challenge, but you'd still get dumb shit like that. This whole area is definitely something I hope gets fixed in SE5.

So, in summary, both games had their own great points, depending on what you're in the mood for. If you want a colorful, excellent AI and more polish overall, play GalCiv. If you want more unique civilizations (or at least tech trees) and more realistic planets/systems, Space Empires.

EDIT: Fixed paragraphs.
Reply #14 Top
Thanks so much Caprion ... great information !!
Reply #15 Top
First I'd just like to point out to Odin314 that he should do a search and see how many times other games have been talked about, MOO2, BOTF, Reach for the stars, list keeps going on, so maybe you shouldn't flame someone who just wants to compare a different game to this one. Anyway when I first bought my pc I bought galciv 1, it was a great game, however I must admit that after MOO2 it just wasn't enough to really keep me into the game. I guess the main thing I missed was the battles and ship design. I ended up losing intrest about 1-2 months worth of playing it. Which is strange since I love the Civ games, but I guess MOO2 spoiled me, I'm sure it spoiled alot of people. After about 6 months I stumbled across a site for SEIV, I thought it sounded great, after about 2-3 months of debating if I should really buy online (I hate buying things this way, IMO your taking a chance of getting ripped off and not getting anything) I decided that I could just take the chance, it was only like $30. After getting the game, I have to say, honestly, it sucked. Plain, Vanilla version sucks. But....But....after all the different downloads and mods that were available at that time, I have to say, it EASILY turned into my favorite game of all time, I played this game for at least 2-3 years (the only reason I stopped was due to a hard drive failure and ended up losing all the mods). This game was so easy to mod, it was unbeliveable. Now I got Galciv 2, I got to say Great game, just missing tactical battles and MP. IMHO its the only 2 things missing from the Galciv series. I got to say that their both great games, its too bad Aaron hall and Brad dont get together and just form one great company, they would probably do so well they could buy out EA and Sony in a year.
Reply #16 Top
Thanks for the detailed comparison! There is the TDM-modpack for SE:IV which significantly improves the play of the AI. However, it has limitations. SE:V will feature a scriptable AI, which should certainly make a world of difference once some good AI modders mess around with it.
Reply #17 Top
The last Space Empires game had a clean, crisp and good looking main view screen/window - it was very polished. It was still 2D and very, very good. The reason why many people prefered it to all the other similiar games was due to its outstanding gameplay - making it far better than any big 3d game (or similiar 2d game with better graphics).

I don't have it anymore - I actually threw the disk out and uninstalled it because I was spending too much time playing it! I still think it was more fun playing it than playing GC2 - but not by a large margin (and the new add on pack will have races able to colonise different types of planets - bringing the two games even closer than before in terms of gameplay).

I am however really very worried this time around that the huge flexibility in gameplay will have been sacrified to a significant degree to allow a 3d engine. I expect to find far fewer techs and an interface that, regardless of looks, will result in things taking much longer. My only hope is that they've seen and played GC2 - and that its raised the benchmark for them

Reply #18 Top
I'm a beta test for SE:V and I can assure you that the 3d affects only the display of ships in combat and the system view (which can still be top down etc.) and nothing else. There are actually more techs, information, and other items in SE:V than there was in SE:IV.
Reply #19 Top
These are the salad days for turn based space strategy gaming, my friends. Not only will there be an awesome expansion to GalCiv2, but we have SE V coming out, and a few others out there I had heard of as well--something called "Horizon" and also "Sword of the Stars". If they look good I'll buy one of each--we have to support the few developers that cater to us turn based gamers.
Of course, I'll support GalCiv3...
Reply #20 Top
Space_Empires_V will have tactical battles and multiplayer. I'm interested in both of these games, but haven't played either one yet.


Wait a minute. You've been campaigning for multiplayer for quite a while, and you've never played the freaking game?

Congratulations. You've just made everything you've posted worthless. To have an opinion of a game, you play the game. Nice try for the ad campaign, and stop ranting until you play it, mmmkay? How the hell would you know whether this game is suited to multiplayer without even playing it? seriously?
Reply #21 Top
I really like Space Empires 4. I played Stars! as well. Im just getting into GalCiv2 (had it for two days).

Stars! is brilliant via email and is still the best of the three in my opinion becuase of the minefields and affects of fuel etc as well as the open space between systems which means you can be attacked from anywhere - far more reslitic than Space Empires. Minefields are truly brilliant. Also having to support transport ships etc is great. But visually Stars! in terrible these days and that really affects the pleasure of playing the game. There was once going to be a sequel but the publisher pulled out and it disappeared.

Space Empires is a great game as well mainly for the complete flexibility to be able to play the game any way you want. You can have carriers and fighters, go the stealth route, choose massive fleets, etc etc. Its major problem is that the 3d tactical battles are quite drawn out and boring after a while. Also the way it utilises hyperjump point means that wars often revolve around mining the hyperspace points whihc are massive bottlenecks. You can easily defend against the enemy doing this but replacing mines gets repetitive. But the game has loads to do and loads of ways to play it.

GalCiv like I say Im still getting to grips with. I dont like the lack of fuel in the game and the way it plays very much like Civilisation with zones of effect etc which I really dont like in either game. Otherwise it seems fun but perhaps could do with some minefields, stealth combat effects and other ideas from SE4/Stars. Also there seems no reason to have transport ships and there are very little supply line effects in the game. This could do with a radical rethink IMO. I dnt mind the auto battles but it would be nice to be able to pick some kind of tactical attack methodology for your ships not just have them do what they want. Also types of weapons and defnses are quite poor in imagination in comparison to the other two games. But theres no doubt that Galciv looks the better of the three visually.

Nats
Reply #22 Top
Will Space Empires V have fantastic single-player features? The reason I ask is because many games bolt on 'rushed' single player features to a game designed for multiplayer. If it's not going to be a good SP gaming experience, then I can do without it.
Reply #23 Top
It's not like the Space Empires series is designed for multiplayer. It, like most turn-based games, has a play-by-email mode that can be automated online or over a LAN etc.

Space Empires is good for single player, but the stock versions tend to be a little bland with weaker AI. It usually takes a few good modders to work with the AI etc. to make the single-player experience more enjoyable.
Reply #24 Top

Just for clarification - we support discussion of other strategy games here. Just make sure they are in the off-topic section is used.

But as far as Stardock is concerned, the better strategy games do, the better we all do. Hail SE V and others.

Reply #25 Top
Also there seems no reason to have transport ships and there are very little supply line effects in the game. This could do with a radical rethink IMO

Well, unless I missed something but I think that Brad has the following policy concerning features:
- it must have a fun factor, and increasing micromanagement doesn't generally translate into increasing the fun factor (ask to people playing gigantic galaxies)
- the AI must be able to handle it.

I dnt mind the auto battles but it would be nice to be able to pick some kind of tactical attack methodology for your ships not just have them do what they want.

Well, ships in battle don't do what they want: they are concentrating fire on ships that can deal the most damage while being the easily killed. The only cavecat is that calculation doesn't take into account the rock-sissor-paper rules of damage: it is the total of HP + defense that is taking in account and not how many turns a ship will need to kill another. And that could be very different if the defense correctly blocks the attack or not.