A Plea For Decent Armies (Ground Units)

But first a question

from GalCiv2 Forums

This is my first post on the Galactic Civ Forums.  I think the game is, overall, wonderful, a truly superb piece of imaginative game-making.  But...ever see a game player without a But...

First, my question.  There may be exceptions but in the Space Strategy games I have played all spend vast amounts of detail on ship design and combat.  Ground Combat though is always treated in a very brief abstracted manner.  Why is this?  I would bet that the big majority of Galactic Civ players have read and loved Heinlein's Starship Troopers.  With ships we can design them, name them individually, upgrade them, get excellent graphics and perform a host of actions.  With ground troops we don't even get distinct units, just Troops Pods that disappear after the Invasion.  Why?  Why do Space Strategy games always scant the ground combat?

Second, my request, my fervent plea.  I do not ask that ground combat be as detailed or elaborate as ship combat but could the designers please give us somewhat more.  I know nothing about coding ect. but would it be very difficult to create distinct Army Units that remain in existence until either destroyed in battle or disbanded?  Would it be hard to name them, upgrade them, have them accumulate experience points.  I may be a party of one but I think this would add a truly enjoyable element to the game that is now missing.

Space Strategy games have much in common, from a strategic point of view, with the US-Japan Pacific War, if you imagine the islands as planets.  And yes, both that real war and the game wars of Galactic Civ are ultimately decided by control of the Air, or Space, around the islands, or planets.  But would a game of the Pacific War be as enjoyable if ground combat was as abbreviated as it is in Galactic Civ?  At least could there not be a button at game setup that let the player decide if she wanted to use the present abstracted system or use one with more depth?

This is my only real complaint about a truly superb game.  Thanks to the designers.

11,705 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
1) An all new Invasion screen & processing "features" which would include a sort of tactical context with ground combat & (somehow) units.
2) Transport ships should simply be re-usable and boarded right back by whatever troops remain after conquest. Next target!

Two of the essential things that ***may*** provide what you just asked for.

Version 2.0 - maybe. :)
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think those features would be beyond even Stardock's scope of an update. Both are rather massive changes to the game mechanics. Maybe we'll see them in GC3.

I really doubt it, though. The scope of the game would prevent it. What would seem to be reasonable on maps up to medium, there's no way anyone could use persistent ground units and full land battles in a gigantic game where you might invade 20+ planets in one turn.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One can always wish or dream outloud, even if only to stir and rattle the minds of precious (but still busy with v2.0) SD coders! ;)
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My 2 cents: Please don't make galciv 3 into a rise of nations / total war type of game. I don't like fighting the ground battles. Keep it strategic and not 2 much tactical/micromanagement.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Oh, but i DO agree it should be kept simple - we don't want GC to become another game (no-tech brokering ala Civ-4, anyone?).

The key reasoning behind **adding** features to such a 4X is to realize that "some" people may wish for a certain area to be enhanced while others are completely against it. I guess, it's more about WHAT the coders --decide-- to put in while hoping the majority will enjoy *it*.

I doubt anybody would complain that Enhanced Espionage will BE in v2.0, though.

Thus, new features may be risky. If this game should evolve, it MUST take hard steps towards new concepts; simplistic (or simulated, btw) combat by tactical means on planet surfaces, being just one of plenty more ideas of relative importance to players.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Two of the essential things that ***may*** provide what you just asked for.

Version 2.0 - maybe.


I wouldn't bet on any kind of tactical combat ever making its way into GC2. It's definitely far more than a patch could bring.

I do believe we're planning to try it in the fantasy game (MoM/AoW like combat), so if it goes well there then it could be possible for GC3.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I do believe we're planning to try it in the fantasy game (MoM/AoW like combat), so if it goes well there then it could be possible for GC3.

I hope so, because that is one of the many things I liked about MoM. :)

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Two of the essential things that ***may*** provide what you just asked for.Version 2.0 - maybe.

I wouldn't bet on any kind of tactical combat ever making its way into GC2. It's definitely far more than a patch could bring.I do believe we're planning to try it in the fantasy game (MoM/AoW like combat), so if it goes well there then it could be possible for GC3.


At least remind the voices that wanted the old screen back. Just consider changing the look of the invasion screen a bit and i would be happy. Its not that the videos should go, i just want to see soldiers dropping, thats all. The new screen feels less immersive and thats why players want the old one back.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
...I do believe we're planning to try it in the fantasy game (MoM/AoW like combat), so if it goes well there then it could be possible for GC3.


I'd certainly BUY into, hands down - blind folded, such a new feature for GC3 as it would certainly deepen the 'invasion process' in great lenghts!

Blame my preference for 'true' ground level Tactical combat engine as developped extensively in other games like X-Com (1994 stuff, i might add). ;)

It's just that today's hardware can & will be able to open up HUGE gameplay avenues - trick is which corp is going to grab that market potential first?
StarDock (within the highly expected upcoming Fantasy title) or anyone else for any "new" titles, be it similar to GC2 concepts or not?

We, as players, we'll always be there to stack the whole bunch of $$$ against the very best. As long as our needs are simply, answered.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
...Its not that the videos should go, i just want to see soldiers dropping, thats all. The new screen feels less immersive and thats why players want the old one back.


I, too, sometimes miss the good'ol left-to-right-back-forth exchange of laser beams between two "armies" going at it! It was simply fun to watch.

But the new one is *also* enjoyable while i think about it; a change for the best? Hard to give a definitive answer. People's taste is a double edge sword... sharpened like a razor blade. Cuts right through the gameplayers' mind.

How hard could it be to simply, make it an option; Old *or* New invasion screens?

Unless, someone would have a better idea (including the kind of tactical scenes discussed earlier).
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
... I do believe we're planning to try it in the fantasy game (MoM/AoW like combat), so if it goes well there then it could be possible for GC3.


OMG!!!! I STILL play MoM on occasion using DOSBox. If Stardock put out a TBS similar to MoM I would buy it in a second. My girlfriend has been playing Heroes V, and I think Ubisoft has done a very good job in that area. Heroes V has some amazing graphics and is seriously addictive and fun. On the flip-side, AFAIK, there is no option for non-campaign game play, which I actually prefer. So, I think Stardock has a really good chance of being successful in the fantasy TBS genre. Especially if you guys put the same level of polish into it as you do did with the GalCiv2 series.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
[quoteOMG!!!! I STILL play MoM on occasion using DOSBox. If Stardock put out a TBS similar to MoM I would buy it in a second. My girlfriend has been playing Heroes V, and I think Ubisoft has done a very good job in that area. Heroes V has some amazing graphics and is seriously addictive and fun. On the flip-side, AFAIK, there is no option for non-campaign game play, which I actually prefer. So, I think Stardock has a really good chance of being successful in the fantasy TBS genre. Especially if you guys put the same level of polish into it as you do did with the GalCiv2 series.[/quote]

They are making one, and sometimes even refer to it as not-MoM, since they dont have the copyright. ;)

I think Heroes III was the best of that series. Check it out if you can. :)

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...


Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
To Stardock,

Very well, I see when I'm licked. But YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE A STRATEGIC LEVEL FANTASY GAME! I have waited so long for this that I will not wail about the lack of ground units in Galactic Civ II. And if your Fantasy game does have good tactical combat, then I can ask for little more. Thank you.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Please, no detailed ground combat. I'm perfectly happy deciding big-picture strategy, which is what a turn base game is all about.

The last thing I want to do is push around infantry and tanks - sounds like a jittery click fest. Ack.

Hydro
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Please, no detailed ground combat. I'm perfectly happy deciding big-picture strategy, which is what a turn base game is all about.The last thing I want to do is push around infantry and tanks - sounds like a jittery click fest. Ack.Hydro

If they make it like MoM, the unit combat would be turn based. That is one thing I loved about MoM, so I want to see it in not-MOM! :D

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...

Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Please, no detailed ground combat. I'm perfectly happy deciding big-picture strategy, which is what a turn base game is all about.

The last thing I want to do is push around infantry and tanks - sounds like a jittery click fest. Ack.


Yep, but we **already** watch a simulation of such stuff right in the Invasion screens, don't we?

TBS has to be reasoned as a tactical principle too - at times.

Not saying, GC2 ---has--- to become more complex or involve us into a ground level interaction so busy we'd simply skip it. I know many hard-core gamers who enjoy the shear slick combat control rather than trusting a code to randomize a result based on some weird techno edge values. Enhanced troops have a better chance to defeat lowest oppositions but if they do not carry the proper weapons, even a tidal wave bought can't make 'hem any worst.

All i'm saying is that the OPTION of true planetary skirmishes by lining up a bunch of troopers on a battlefield and telling them to shoot at the big moving tank overthere could be somehow fun to either win or lose -- by our own decisions.

Instead of a simulated bunch of 'MOO like' repetitive results.

I've got the skills (or techno points) to fight better, i should have the opportunity to prove it by making wise choices; interactive - i might add.

Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I think adding ground units could add another level of strategy in the game, if done correctly.

I have an interesting idea that could work for GC3.

I don't want to control the individual units in battle, or even really strategically place them.  I like that I don't have to do that for the space battles either.  It can be fun, but there are other games for that.  Adding that level of complexity on top of already incredibely complex game would drive people nuts, and for me at least not make the game fun any more.

Now to my idea: There would be a number of different ground units ( not all that many, I think 5 would be enough) and you gain access to these units by researching the appropriate techs.  Then, when you launch a transport you would decide how many or perhaps what ratio of different units to load into it.  Also, when a colony is attacked you would decide the ratio of different units, of the units available to you, (you would do this without knowing the ratios of the attackers). 

The units would work similarly to how the weapons and defenses on ships work now - some are stronger against some units and weaker against others.  This could also give you an opportunity to exploit another civ by loading up with a particular kind of unit if you realize that civ hasn't researched the tech for the unit that is strong against your unit.  The soldiering ability would still work, just by making all your units stronger overall.

That is my idea about how to make the ground combat more interesting without adding a crazy amount of depth.

Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

yep, but the main difference between *Simulation* & *Control* of any sort of combat activities is more about HOW the gameplay engine evaluates the resuts - specifically, what if anything is the win/lose factor once the options (you suggested) get rolled out during a planetary invasion.

 

I'm more inclined towards systematic contexts which adapt to certain conditions (tech related too, btw) present in both the planet situations and what attack/defense ratios are active for each opponents;

Examples...

- Toxic (etc) enviros would require specific 'army' components to sustain battles.

- Ground, Naval, Air strikes to *TACTICAL* targets with an invasion roaster capable of such tasks.

- Supplemental strategies based on what could be destroyed or 'sabotaged' in order to tilt the balance of power in someone's favor (be it defender or attacker).

- A pool of advantages or handicaps which clearly influences the outcome.

- Proper design of value_quantity of 'troops' as it can impact defeat or victory -- but, in shades rather than one_takes_all.  Retreat, missions, take your losses and concede. Sort of.

 

Right now, we get a general flavor sense by paying for tactics... what it lacks is details which can shuffle with complex (but simulated, again) variables that are directly dependant on the invasion "structural choices" made.

 

Thus... conquer with decisions. Instead of general properties.

Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Ground combat in space 4X games as a natural extension of MoM's tactical unit battles are something that I've been salivating over for a very, very long time.  Glad to see that it's got the dev's interest as well.

For those who don't like it, it's not a big deal.  Even according to MoM strategy, individual tactical battles could be foregone conclusions based on strategic factors.  In fact, once your army is big enough, you tended to automate those battles anyway.

What you get is character.  Instead of making a "troop pod", you make tanks, infantry, and mecha, and those ground invasion troops have specific qualities that make the ensuing combat interesting - a little bit like extra ship battles.

Mecha counter tanks, tanks counter infantry, and infantry counter mecha.  Or some such.

As in MOO, certain kinds of weapons and defense tech would inherently improve your troops, whereas you can also research dedicated troop improvement technologies.

We don't need a unit tree as involved as Civ IV's.  It can be 10 units upgrades in a line scattered through the tech trees, just like now.

Instead of a city-scape, we would have a planet-scape for battles.  Each continent would have a few tiles in it, corresponding to the tiles in the actual planet screen.  Your troops occupy the tiles, and you could have as many fighting troops as you have tiles stationed at the planet.  As you land, you occupy tiles and then fight through the tiles MoM style.

Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting kryo, reply 6
Two of the essential things that ***may*** provide what you just asked for.

Version 2.0 - maybe.

I wouldn't bet on any kind of tactical combat ever making its way into GC2. It's definitely far more than a patch could bring.

I do believe we're planning to try it in the fantasy game (MoM/AoW like combat), so if it goes well there then it could be possible for GC3.

 

So does this mean there will be a GC III? I thought I read from a stardock website there will be no GC III.

Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting HsojVvad, reply 20
So does this mean there will be a GC III? I thought I read from a stardock website there will be no GC III.

There will be a GC3.  There will not be a GC2 3.0.

GC3 is expected to be a few years down the road-2012 if I remember correctly but I could be off by a year or so in either direction.