All I want is the ability for my decisions in combat, to vastly alter the outcome of a battle. To out smart the enemy in battle so to speak.

(It can be as simple as setting fleet behaviors, to as "complex" as they did in Fallen Enchantress)

Is it too much for that?

 

 

Because a very large number of people will fight a large percentage of the battles themselves if given the option to do so. Being an opponent of tactical combat, I don't think you understand this. Many people like tactical combat for the sake of tactical combat.

 

Others, myself included, feel that the game is significantly a lesser experience without a good tactical combat game.

I think you make unwarranted assumptions; I like tactical combat in other games. GalCiv is the go to game when a person wants a strategy game but *doesn't* want a tactical level. There aren't many choices out there that don't have tactical combat; the lack is a selling point for GalCiv, not a weakness to be fixed.

Hell, just look at the topic post. Tactical mode being "the most interesting part"? That's what the tactical combat crowd is asking for - a full shift to a tactical focus rather than the empire-level strategy that GalCiv has done very well in the past. Maybe that's not what you personally have in mind, but the people you're arguing on behalf of think otherwise.

Be careful what you wish for; I'm going to continue railing against tactical combat until we see for sure which way it goes. After that, well, I can always go back to GalCiv2 if the tactical combat fanboys wreck the game as badly as I think they're going to.

Precisely. 

Not that I didn't enjoy GalCiv2, because I did.  However, I freely admit I'd have enjoyed it even more if it had included some sort of tactical combat system. 

 

Except it's probable that that, too, is an unwarranted assumption on your part.  

Almost every space 4x title in the last 20 years has had tactical combat to some degree.  The few that don't, get docked for it -- even GalCiv2, which I agree is otherwise a very good game.  That indicates the vast majority of folks want some form of tactical combat in their 4x games (to a greater or lesser degree). 

 

Actually, that's only what the OP is asking for. 

I've no doubt there are others who agree with him, but most fans of the GalCiv franchise know that empire-level strategy is still what matters the most in these games. Much as I'm looking forward to GalCiv3 having tactical combat (in some form), I neither expect nor desire "Total War in space".  I'm pretty sure that's *not* what most folks here want, either. 

 

In any case, I don't think you have to worry.  Brad has always had his own vision for the GalCiv series, and there's absolutely no way he'll ever allow tactical combat (however it's implemented) to dominate and/or be central to the game. 

 

I hope they keep tactical battles the hell away from Galciv3.

Someone from Stardock (although I think it was Brad himself) already indicated tactical combat is being included in some form.  At the very least, it's no longer going to be a "viewing-only" affair; we'll be able to have at least some effect on battles. 

 

I would'nt think so after reading this:

I'm happy if I get the galciv2 combat, I just want to see the goodies, even better with greater graphics!

Sure tactical combat is fun, but in a turn based game it can get tedious and boring if it's a lot of battles in a row. :/

Like those car ads say, "And is better than or".

I agree. It is a selling point. I don't know many games off hand that is a strong strategy game without tactical combat.

I often find that strategy games that include tactical combat puts an unfair emphasis on tactical combat. I've played Total War games where every 1 turn of strategy I played, I had to play at a minimum of 3 tactical battles. They weren't quick battles either, so most of the time I spent playing was the tactical battles.

They weren't even fun tactical battles either. I had got things down to a science where I could have programmed scripted AIs to get the same results I got. With variety exhausted, I saw little point in continue playing. I finished a campaign for the sake of finishing one, but I couldn't sustain enough interest (or patience) to get far in a second one.

This game is called Galactic Civilizations for a reason. It should be about the civilizations, or it is a bad name. I wonder if people would rather play a game called "Galactic Endless War" or something like that. It sound more like something they would rather play.

 

Sure, you got a point, but name one empire that expanded without warfare at some point?
The story in the game is driven by war and mayhem, wouldn't be much point to play the campaign if I couldn't witness the happenings.

I really like the depth of managing a civilization, but sometimes I just want the urge to show of my military muscles, and when I do, there's just an unexplainable satisfaction I get by watching my dreaded fleet fire away some long range missiles followed up with some plasma bolts by ships I created and designed.

Leave that satisfaction out of a game like this and it wouldn't be as attractive for me anymore

When did I say no warfare?

What I said was that people who want a large amount of tactical battles should look for a different game, not try to turn a good strategy game into a game that include large amounts of tactical battles. Such a change can turn away the original fans of the games. If such a thing were to be allowed, then I fear that a pattern will happen where good strategy games will transform into games with massive amounts of tactical elements, strategy players will move on to new games having been turned off by all the tactical battles, and then these tactical fans will try to turn those games into games with massive amounts of tactical elements.

Too many tactical battles in a strategy game have a similar effect on me. It can make strategy games unattractive to me. It keeps making me think "Come on. I want to play the next turn already. I don't want to fight these tactical battles. I only do so because the auto resolve gives me terrible results.".

I think that is reasonable for people to ask for games that don't mix strategy with tactical battles, but instead focus on just the strategy. Even if that means that means it makes certain games unattractive for others. I mean, some people like sports while others do. Is is reasonable that because some people like sports, that every game must therefore involve sports?

I would be most annoyed that when I clicked end turn, that I had to win a baseball game, win a race, beat a few platformer levels and be told that my princess is in another castle, do a zone of metroidvania, do a level of a FPS, do a RPG side quest, solve a puzzle, etc, all before I could play another turn.

Well, to throw another wrench into the argument...

I'm all for a purely strategic GalCiv3 but I would like to have some sort of "hooks' in the game so, when a tactical battle comes around, I have the option of running a completely different program to resolve it.  I push the button, GalCiv3 saves a file with all the ship stats/shapes, then runs the other program.  After the battle resolves, the other program replaces the file with the starting stats with result stats.

So where is that other program coming from?  Could be a few places.  Stardock could make one themselves as a separate (possibly stand alone) game.  They could do a deal with some third party.  Of course those mean those of us wanting deep tactical battles will have to actually pay extra but I'm fine with that.  I would essentially be playing two games, after all.  Plus the folks that want no part of the tactics can simply not buy it.

(Or maybe Stardock could just publish the API and hope somebody takes it upon themselves to build a nice little strategy game around it?  That's a lot of work to be basing on a "build it and they will come" business model.)

P.S.  Of COURSE there's a use for auto-resolve when it isn't quite as good as the player!  Many (probably most) battles in strategy games are complete blow-outs.  When a large carrier group pounces on a lone destroyer, it isn't going to matter if one side has a master tactician and the other side has a trained monkey.

I don't mind 'basic' tactical combat like the kind found in Gratuitous Space Battles (Give out very basic orders prior to combat, units fight automatically), but full-on tactical battles would detract really heavily from the strategy elements in the game. Not to mention how much time it would take to complete the dozens of battles that can happen late game per-turn.

The "main screen" of the game should be the galaxy map, not a battle viewer

 

 

@DivineWrath

 

I guess I missunderstood you then.
I'm happy if I'lll be able to choose a formation for my fleet if I want too, and before a battle, choose how the fleet should react, defensive, aggressive, cautious, try to flee, etc, but then I'm happy with the battle playing out as it did in galciv2, just letting me spectate if I want too. 

I remember a game named Fragile Allegiances, old old game, but those battles was fun! even if I couldnt control individual ships.

I can enjoy most types of game if they don't try to do too much.  It adds realism.  With a consistent perspective it gets your imagination growing into the role.  Thief 3 experience was watered-down because it let you see round corners by using 3rd person mode.  

An emperor on the bridge or in command HQ will not have direct control of individual ships anyway or be able to see it all happening.  'Total War' games really fall down on realism, for me personally.

 

Assumptions? Given that the debate on tactical combat has spanned several threads, it is safe to say this:

 

For a large percentage of the fanbase, tactical combat is the most in demand feature. Another large percentage (yourself included) seem to strongly oppose it.

 

Tactical combat would be the most interesting addition indeed, if it were added into the game. Let's face it, at most we're going to see:

 

- Better graphics

- A better designed tech tree and more variation between the races

- Hopefully better AI

 

Compared to GC2, that's about it as far as what GC3 has offered so far. That's not to say that it's bad what we've seen so far, it's just to say that for a large percentage of the fanbase, tactical combat seems like the next logical progression.

 

 

 

I think everyone here knows exactly what the OP was wishing for. Good tactical combat. And I hope the OP gets his/her wish. So do a lot of the people who play GC2 it would seem.

 

Pretty much this.

 

I would imagine that if tactical combat is added, that it won't detract too much from the strategic layer and may even add to it.

Well we know now there's going to be some type of fleet stuff, as well as some extra combat mechanics like range and evasion. We also know there won't be individual ship control style tactical combat.

It sounds like the door's open for something.

Again, assumptions. Based on the forums, a relative handful of users are demanding tactical combat. A different handful are dead set against it. The hundreds of thousands of users who aren't posting here hold opinions we can't know with any accuracy. There are dangers in basing any action solely on those users agitated enough to post on the official forums in hopes of game developers seeing their opinions. Neither of us speak for a significant portion of the user base. We'd like to think we do, but we really don't.

He didn't say "most interesting addition". Absolute terms, not relative to the other changes from GC2.

I'm confident that you don't want GC3 to be combat-centric; I'm just not sure that FlyingAngel agrees with you.

Well said.

I was thinking about this myself. I wasn't sure how to go about saying it though.

What I suspect is happening is the people who want tactical combat started the conversations, and those who don't want it are reacting. A lot of people (the majority most likely) who have no opinion on this matter, nothing to say on this topic, or are happy to lurk haven't said anything... yet.

Whatever happens, happens lol...

Besides, i think by now the devs prolly have decided and work out what type of combat they want for encounters. Our arguing ain't gonna change anything...