Comparison with Other Strategy Games

A cumulative bonus for the fleets would fit well.
Regarding the customization of the player's race a system like that of Master of Orion 2 for custom races would be perfect.
A weird thing is that in the foreign politicy screen defeated races continue to exist even after their demise untill the next turn after the take over of their last star system...you can even make treaties and exchange techs with them even if they don't exist anymore...

On point 1:
Agreed, the ai does a few silly things. However, I still have to win a masochistic game, so I can't say it's too easy.

On point 2:
One thing I don't want for sure is tactical combat. Definitely not. I don't really mind if a dreadnought can't wipe 10 colony ships in one turn, either.
I would like, however, to see some combined arms, like a defender ship which is the first to be targetted in a stack rather than letting my AMM take the blows, and some mission-specific ships.
I don't really mind if too numerous armies don't get a bonus. It is probably not 'realistic', but I think it plays well enough. The problem implemeting that would raise is the effect of a stack against another stack. If you give attack bonuses, you will probably ending up with weird results unless you code something complicated.
Since this area of the game doesn't need realism IMO (you can't really pretend to realism where no space battle ever occurred anyway), I don't think coding a fleet combat would enhance gameplay.
Just mission ships which get selected from a fleet when one is most suited, then let them fight one on one.

On point 3:
The current level of race customisation is good enough for me. I'd rather have more customization of the world (number of random events, probability for them, frequency of anomalies, of resources...).
There are a few picks (luck) which you won't get in-game. More picks like that would require more concepts into the game. Some could be added, but only if the ai can cope with them.

On 1, I also want to point out that it is a good thing IMO that the ai doesn't gang against the player. It is bad that they build 4 different starbases in the same sector before they start building modules, or that they send a ship out of orbit so it is easier to pick.

Bobo not like tactical combat (him use big words again) for GalCiv. Bobo like Moo2 but hate big ship battles. Take too long. Bobo go on tire swing and come back hour later when fight done.
Bob like hall of fame.
Bobo like to play other aliens
Bobo not have much more to fix. Him like GalCiv.

I held off buying GalCiv for a good week because of the reviews about combat.

The combat is basic, nobody will argue that.
I still finding it as fun as the best Moo2 battle memories.

My main complaint is you can't always understand what just happened.

i.e. my fleet of 25 ships attack a planet.
BAM explosion my fleet it at 24.

I click again... it feels like running racecars into eachother or something... I don't always know what the heck happened, what ship damaged what etc.

If you don't click on the planet, you won't even know what you are fighting. Sometimes in the fleet battles I can't read the stack numbers.

This game could REALLY benefit from a combat detail (like Age of Wonders or Warlords had). You could have it on a sidescreen, but just something to show what the heck just happened.

You do need some control over fleet actions. I have a group of AAM's protected by a BattleHammer but every encounter with an enemy corvette cost me one more AAM. By the time I get to my target I don't have any AAMs left.

Civ had the designated defender role which might help you could also have a "meta-ship" based on all the ships in a fleet. I know one reason behind the current game is that they don't want you to be able to build an "unstoppable" fleet.

Hmmmm... I think I tend to agree with Miguel in that having a sidebar showing the combat outcomes (akin to Warlords) would be much more effective and interesting. I myself find myself less interested in getting involved in tactical battle and endless manuevering/positioning/firing, and thus enjoy this style of combat. However, I do feel a bit in the dark about what has just happened after a battle is finished. I have problems appreciating just how powerful or powerless my ships are against the enemy. I can glean some of my success based on the pretty things I am firing, but it's more interpretation than anything...

-Anx

"The combat is basic, nobody will argue that.
I still finding it as fun as the best Moo2 battle memories.

My main complaint is you can't always understand what just happened."

Wonder why they do not make combat screens like warlords, seem that they would fit nicely and could be turned on and off with not that much more code going into the game.

I wouldn't mind a tactical combat option. You could make it so that it could be turned off, just like MOO2.

I wouldn't mind a tactical combat option. You could make it so that it could be turned off, just like MOO2.

Hmmm...Somehow I posted twice...sorry.

That's 3 times now

"I wouldn't mind a tactical combat option. You could make it so that it could be turned off, just like MOO2. "

I think if the stacks were a little more intelligent, that would be enough. For example, freighters, transports & colony ships (or anything with attack = 0) should be the LAST thing attacked since they are being defended.

OK, let me retract that. The decisions should be based on movement rate. This would be much cooler, because fast ships could "outmaneuver slow ships.

Here's how it could work with the existing ship data:

1. Are there any defending ships faster than the attacking ship? If so, they have the option of defending against the attacker -- IF THEY WANT. If not, they can maneuver themselves behind a slower defender (like a Battle Axe). If all of the defenders are faster than the attacker, they get to choose the defender.

2. Is the attacking ship faster than any of the defenders? If so, he can attack whichever ship he wants -- obviously transports would get a priority here.

In other words, an attacking ship can only attack a faster ship if it allows itself to be attacked. Of course, the attacking ship always gets to attack someone. Having a higher speed does not mean you get to avoid the battle.

Play larger maps dude.

~SDC~

Ganging up on a lone ship should give SOME kind of advantage. You can throw a bunch of battle hammers at a battleship which will just chew them up and spit out the bones.

"A cumulative bonus for the fleets would fit well."

I disagree. Fleet bonuses gives a greater advantage to larger armies, in addition to the fact that they already have a larger army. It's makes a "guerilla" come-back impossible.

Regarding tactical combat.. I think you are looking at it wrong. We already have tactical combat. On the main screen.

--I really like Thongor's idea of "speed" based targeting selection; this would give ships like starfighters and phoenixes more use through the game.

As an inbetween method, we could have a battle popup like the planet one, with Attack types (defesive etc). We could see the battle wage out cavewars style, depending on choices.

~SDC~

1. Well, if you are an expert at this sort of game, no 4X game probably is going to be 'very hard' for you. LOL I definately agree though, that making the AI play smarter is a good thing. Escorted transports, smarter defense at starbases or on planets, etc. These features will certainly be implemented over time. The support for this game is nothing short of excellent. The Devs (Brad in particular) creates suggestion threads.. this is only good. If you have some expert ideas, do post them there!

2. This has already been hashed over. They did not want a 'mega fleet' cruising around, mopping up all resistance while other small fleets provided covering fire. I didn't enjoy this in other games either (from 4x games to other strat games, like HOMM, where mega stacks killed anything). Therefore I liken this to chess. You don't stack 10 queens on top of one another to make a more powerful attack, you strategically place your BETTER piece in a smarter spot to get the most benefit out of it. Bigger stacks doesn't necessarily make for more strategic play. In fact, IMO, at lessens it. It is a no brainer where a huuuge fleet of ships go typically. It is much cooler to know that one really powerful ship may not be able to take down a mass of much weaker ships with ease. You must plan ahead.. this is good, imo.

And tactical combat imo is vastly overrated. Tell the truth now.. how often in a battle in MOO or SEIV did you NOT already know the outcome? At BEST, great 'tactics' in ship to ship combat maybe saved a ship here or there.. but in the long run, it added little strategic value to the game. In MOO or SEIV if I didn't think I could win a battle.. I didn't enter combat. 99.9% of the time, I already knew the outcome of a tactical battle before I entered it. Thusly, I usually had the combat auto resolve anyways. It was just a time killer.

3. The races are very customizable! Again, how much difference in SEIV did it make whether your race breathed methane or hydrogen? You simply inhabited the worlds you could. It really didn't have in impact on the game at all. There are occassionaly a few neat quirks as a result from picking a certain race, but really.. it didn't add much to the strategic portion of the game. The AI in this game each have their own AI.. they most certainly have different agendas, and ways to reach their goals, and this is very cool. Unlike SEIV for instance, where pretty much, it always ended up in a 'wipe everyone out' end game.

Of course I would not MIND more customization. But I don't think is it necessary. But it is hardly a game killer, imo. IMO, more important than the Arceans sucking on hydrogen would perhaps be something like neutral techs. Or better alliances between the other races and you. Or most definately more options based on alignment! That is a very cool feature I think, and a LOT more could be added based on your alignment. I think you should have very definitive and different strategies available depending on what alignment you are. And changing alignment during a game should change races opinions of you, change techs you may have gained, etc. I hope that facet of this game is more thoroughly explored, since I've not seen anything like it before.

fleabitfox

Hmm...this has gotten me to think that maybe the scale that I look at the game needs to be adjusted. Rather than look at the ships at the strategic level and think that there is a finer, tactical lever being done by the computer within the ship stacks, I should consider that I am already working in a tactical scope. I need to position my ships in space as I would want them to fight...with the tanks up front and on the flanks as escorts and the cargo craft in the interior. The "stack as an escort" theory just doesn't work if there is no consideration given to cargo vs escort.

So, only stack ships to make it easier to move them through friendly territory. Once resistance is likely, break them out singly and form a defensive fleet.

Stacking is definitely a problem.
the ship with the best defensive value should take the first strike, and then so on.... that way AMM missles wouldn't get wiped out first.

Also... make it so you could guard a starbase by having a fleet there... I left a stack guarding a vital starbase for awhile, and when war started the first attack bypassed my stack and wiped out the base. Grr.

Thsi stack thread reminded me on of one possible solution. Anyone remeber Civ CTP /CTP II ; individual and stacks existed side by side but the combat was nicely resolved (as in any civ game) on unit by unit basis (witha rtillery given range). Thsi would be a good set up for GC (different sized ships in different rows etc (ie fighetrs/ destroyers/BBD and DR). heavy ships would do the "arty" thing as well has regular combat (when in front).

dawg

I remember Call to Power II- and I like the stack combat if I recall it correctly.

If I also recall, there was a maximum number of units involved. 12 perhaps. Limiting the number of ships in a stack, to 6 for example, would eliminate the 'super fleet'. If they tailored it correctly, the most successful fleets would have a mix of offensive and defense ships (which they would then have to add some more 'specialty ships'.

Could be fun.

C&P

Adding tactical combat (any more than there is present in just moving your ships about the map of course :)) would be a bad idea. It would require a _huge_ amount of time and work on their part, and wouldn't really give us much of a reward for the effort.

I do think however that there should be some more logic to which ship in a stack defends. I'm sick of my AM missiles always getting killed off first. It should be either highest defense or highest HP always goes first, with the exception of Starbases which should always be last.

The idea of a combat summary for each attack would be great. At the bare minimum it should show the stats of the ships involved, how many rounds the combat took, and how many HP each ship lost.

On the missles issue, if you're an enemy guy, which thing are you going to target? The weakly defended missle that will kill you if you give it a turn, or the high defense ship that will likely not die by your attack? I think the missle situation is fine. Of course they're going to attack a missle first. I should think they would have the ability to choose who they would hit first,and that they would hit the thing that causes instant death and that has no defense rather than the thing that has little offensive power and comparably much greater defense.