The only reason why I think they wont let it go is because they think turn based strategy is outdated which I hope not. They almost like the game, but are stuck on real time strategy, or they think the number of posts will convince Stardock will think is reminisent of how many want tactucal real time stradegy. There are more people who want tactical combat than want this to be a real time strategy. Some of the advocates against tactical combat just don't care about tactical combat they just don't want real time strategy. If Stardock ever did decide to turn this game into real time strategy then they will either have to automate some options instead of upgrading some things, or they will have to get rid of them. Distant worlds have some things that are good, but is a far cry from being as near as complex as Galactic civilizations.

I don't know enough about tactics to know if it would work or not. The only reason I suggested it as an option is just in case I found out I didn't like it. There is know way I would like real time over turn based. I suggested that simultaneously turns which is not real time, but all the factions take turns at the same time still being turn based where that wouldn't change things just speed it up. Didn't Brad say in an interview that this would not work for the game.

As far as tactical combat I don't know. As far as real time please no. I'm down for factions taking their turns at once that is still turn based.

Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Is what the nay Sayers will tell you for even mentioning the idea. Watch out the walls have ears. (half lol)

Real time or is it about what I said about internet conversation.

If you're just ship commander, then design is outside of your control, you won't have enough responsibilities to do so. Your job is to command, and to adapt your actions and crew to existing circumstances. Command could give you new ship to test it (whole upgrades system was one of few comlains I had to Nexus, for me it's just outside of our area of responsibility), but that's all. Should we have good records, we could ask transfer on better ship, or request certain upgrades but nothing more.

As I see learning curve of this game it should start in academy - big, mostly text-based tutorial. During it, or after exams, player will be send to different ships, where he would assume different positions. Starting one could be engineering officers, to check player's understanding of maneuvers, and proper use of it. Then we could be transfered to comms/radar officer, where game would tech player to control battlefield, and command other ships. Not necessary through submenues, but it works fine in simulators, so maybe through them. Our next post should be either artillery and/or mines/torpedoes officer, where we show how we understand fighting principles. Final, and most important test is navigation officer, where we serve as navigator. Should we pass this test, we'll be given command of our first ship, some small patrol cutter. Then we slowly climb up the ranks, getting bigger ships, or, if we wish, getting smaller ships units command - say destroyers flotilla.

Overall, game should look similar to Silent Hunter (3, if that's important), but less on simulation side, and more or tactical/control side. So when you'll be commanding your ship, you won't have to control each of the aspects - because you'll have subordinate officers who will do that for you, but should you desire to use some illumination shot instead of sabot, you could order to do that, and your artillery officer should follow your order. But you don't have to control each and every turret (or any other form of armament).

The learning curve I suggested is indeed resemble that of Wermacht officers, where candidates went through all subordinate steps, to sieve only worthy ones, thus guaranteeing quality of officers' corps.

Were are all the people swarming in to tell you guys "no". Which is good. People should be able to express their opinions without interruption. Why am I still irritated?

no response needed.

This is a discussion forum, last I checked. Discussion is going to happen. If you want to be able to just say anything without "interruption" (aka: people telling you why the idea won't work), go start a blog. 

Allow me to be the first to tell you(although you weren't a jerk, though you should look at some starwars Empire ar war clips on you tube) it's going to happen and you can use auto resolve like every other game. I didn't click on all of gaunathors links(again)till after I sent the post. But when my OP talked about combat ship speeds and rate of fire without knowing what brad said. And gaunathor who sent me a link in those posts where Brad wardell talked about there being those things in the game and then used that as a defense REALLY MAKES ME ANGRY!!!!!! That sounds like RTC to me(you can still have auto resovle the old way I'm sure, but now we're both happy.) and I should have viewed all of them.

maybe you didn't read them either and in all sovereignty our friend gaunathor might not have read them completely either. I'm human i make mistakes and i thought there wouldn't be any tac combat in galciv3 after the discussion. But after reading that post my BLOOD BOILED WITH RAGE!!!!(or as much as a sovereign fatalist can.)

Yes tridus this is a discussion forum and we can discuss anything. But interrupt when you know the facts in the future. and try to do what I do in real life. Speak only when your right when giving advice, and from the soul when your not.

Ive read them already. I've been here a while. :p

The problem is they also said that ordering individual ships what to fire on won't be happening. How do you take that and infer from it that there is going to be anything other than a more sophisticated auto resolve system?

Thats kind of the problem right now. There isn't enough information to know what it is, so we are seeing what we want to see (myself included). Based on what's been given with fleet roles and the new mechanics, I expect a better version of Endless Space style combat. - give your orders at the start then watch it play out. I don't see any way they do real time combat, because it doesn't fit with what has been said. The turn based nature of the game is big to them, if it was going real time in some component it would have come up by now. 

I love information. Both sides of my brain agree now. But I've, Never played endless space or know what fleet roles are.(I sorta do and don't) if it has ANY tactics in it I'll be happy. And if it allows a smaller smarter force to win I will make a forum declaring June 24 wardell day(his birthday) so PLEASE make me and the people that read this your fans by explaining this and you can bath in karma.

to bad gaunathor isn't here. You hear me gaunathor your missing out!

The little we know on roles is here: https://forums.galciv3.com/450893/page/1/

You can use it to alter ship behaviors in some way, which sounds like a way to have tactics in battles.

Endless Space had battles where you pick a "card", which was a special ability, for each of three phases. You then watched the outcome. The battles look awesome, but the card system itself is a weak point of the game. The expansion Disharmony added formations and some basic orders, so you could tell your ships to focus or spread fire, and put stronger ships in front of weaker ones. 

I like the last. If we want to fire on weak or strong ships first,nice. Or maybe pause the round and make the ships fire on another vessels...i don't know what I'm getting for Christmas from stardock. He mentioned auto resolve which was weird and other things. But they just aren't giving us a good hint. Maybe the wizard of oz will tell us soon...(frogboy)

but I think it will be realtime but we can't really control it since it would fit with rates of fire and evasion like Mr. Wardell said.*

(the above post was speculative and is not currently based on facts but desperate dreams and hope and should be as such.)

Please read that part of my post again. I said that combat in GalCiv 3 will be more complex, and then provided some links to where the devs talked about some of the changes to the combat mechanic. That's all.

I did. Several times in fact, and I didn't see a single hint in them (or any of the other dev-posts), that there'll be tactical combat (whether turn-based or real-time) in GalCiv 3. Rather the opposite.

Where in the world did you get this information? There is no field for birthday in his profile. Can you provide us with a link to where you found it?

The best part about the alpha launch will be to finally bury this dead horse. Of course, people will still try to dig it up and beat on it some more, but at least we'll have concrete proof to shut them up with.

Unless it's not implemented in the alpha.

(Which is entirely possible, several things won't be.)

Wikipedia jack

I had many counter quotes and then fate happened, going to and from web pages I lost what I had written. So I will speak from the heart as I shall not put more time into this than I already have.

please look at the comments made about rates of fire by Mr. wardell, when you think about it and realize LOGICALLY that the old combat system without any tactics now has a cousin that dose and has the option of auto resolve. Please comment on that after you have read it. Please say something about those game mechanics. And what that means to you.

you have been undermining all my ideas and speculations to satisfy your own personal beliefs without observing the merits of my argument.

"I did. Several in fact, and I didn't see a single hint in them (or any of the other dev-posts), that there'll be tactical combat (whether turn-based or real-time) in GalCiv 3. Rather the opposite."

are you feeling ok? the opposite? How can you or anyone think that? You acknowledge the change but not any possibility given. The conversations here, the links, the consensus I and tridus sorta had, and the hint I gave you above should at least give you a different opinion on the game combat mechanics.

AND CAN SOMEONE ELSE LOOK AT THE LINKS AND GIVE A SECOND OPINION ON THE FEATURES MENTIONED, please.

and you are now my frienemy. Lol

respectfully DARCA.

Found it. Thanks. Really didn't expect it there.

Well I read a lot of this, and I will have to agreee that Brad said that Galactic civilizations is not a tactical game, and that there will be no tactics. The answer to tactics is that you will be able to assign ships combat roles. This is not that much you will probably highlight the ship, and under the options there will probably be a combat role option. This will have a default. Basically this would mean that the combat is basically the same the only difference is that the ships will do what you already to them to do. This is most like distant worlds than anything. I would like to see the combat viewer more like endless space that Galactic civilizations.

The reason why people even thought there was going to be real time is because Galactic civilizations suggested that people will take their turns at the same time to speed things up. People have interpret this to mean real time when in actualality this probably more like civilization option where they are doing where players take their turns simultaneously, but you still end the turns. Still turn base. This is probably what you are going to see on the game.

Because the devs have explicitly said so? Listen to the podcast I linked to earlier. At around 43:41 min., Paul Boyer (the Lead Designer of GalCiv 3) says: "We want to keep it simply. We don't want the game to become Gratuitous Space Battles. We don't want it to become a real-time tactical game. We're not making Rome:Total War. We're making GalCiv 3." (I'm slightly paraphrasing the third sentence.)

How else can you interpret that?

sleep well in Germany? Had a good morning?(partly sarcastic and curious?)

I know there will be no real time combat we covered that days ago. To clarify that again. There will be a form of it. Something that involves tactics of some sort and the only reason why we are talking now is because you said."tactical combat (whether turn-based or real-time) in GalCiv 3. Rather the opposite." just from the option of the stated by the devs "auto resolve means the above statement is false and they want to make combat more tactical and fun than boring and outdated.

how can I be trying to make this game into something I never played? I am no longer lobbying for anything but clarity.

and again rates of fire, speed, evasion accuracy all of those should have given you a HINT when they were mentioned by the devs. And I wait YOUR interpretation on those. Although me and tridus I think put together a good idea of it is though the process for friendly argument, and he got karma if you were listening(I even gave you karma to for balancing out forum opinions ironically)

if we keep squabbling the devs will come off their cloud and zap us with doom rays.

fyi it's late here in the states it's late I'm going to bed, gaunathor the forums are your to quote.

I'm curious can you tell me where they said auto resolve.

First off, please stop misquoting me. It gets really annoying. There is a quote-function. Please use it, if you want to address something specific I said.

Secondly, I have already said, that the devs want to make combat more complex.

Lastly, how does auto-resolve make my statement, that the devs haven't provided any hints in favour of tactical combat, false?

All those new stats just mean, that the devs want to make how you design your ships have a bigger effect on how effective they are in combat. There will still be only auto-resolve and the Battle Viewer. You will not be able to directly control your ships during combat, but you can assign specific roles to them, which determines their combat-behaviour.

Paul Boyer, lead designer: At first glance space combat in GC3 will appear similar to that in GC2; ships will fly around in fleets, when ships from separate powers meet in a single tile they fight it out. Two fleets enter, one fleet leaves. Where GC3 will be different is how the battles are fought. If battles are auto-resolved, not much will appear different, but once fleets meet in the battle screen everything changes.

Real time combat could represent a simplistic interface where you can mildly affect the outcome of a battle by controlling maneuvers and targeting, or it could mean an involved interface like Empire at War or Total War.  It should be specified what you are asking for or what you want to avoid, since the other discussions about tactical combat have turned into a similar muddled mess of people arguing about completely different ideas or even arguing about each other agreeing on a point

Brad has also said specifically that they're not making MOO2 style turn based combat where you pick individual ships and tell them what to shoot at (which is commonly known as turn based tactical combat). So we have the lead developer saying it won't be "a realtime tactical combat game", and we have the company owner saying there won't be "pick individual ships and tell them what to fire at turn based tactical combat".

At some point, it becomes hard to combine those statements and come up with a supporting argument for any kind of indepth tactical combat.

Given the ship roles system and the other stats, I still expect something where you can set up your fleet and possibly choose a tactic before the battle starts, but the battle plays out without player interaction. That would be more interactive than Galciv 2 as you can influence the battle outcome with your choices, but it also fits with what's been said.

I kind of like it, honestly. It lets me be involved in combat (unlike the totally hands off GalCiv 2) without bogging down the strategy layer of the game, which is the real focus here. Contrast that with Age of Wonders 3 (the other game I'm eagerly awaiting this spring), which when you get down to it is looking like a pretty awesome tactical combat game that has a strategy layer on top of it providing a stage and framework for said tactical combat.

I always liked TBS the best. VERY FEW exceptions(Starcraft, AoE, Total Annihilation, Warcraft). Now I wouldn't mind an RTS spinfof should they invest the resources one would need to be done properly, I know I wouldnt play it, as I didnt play or buy other titles of the company that are RTS, but hey it is their right to make one for RTS fans if they want. But change the core game? Why? I don't ever see companies do it the other way around(as in go from Real time to Turn based). What are we the TB fans? Like Pariahs or something??? 

Now, you have a legendary game like GC, very well respected within the community and the RTS crowd as always, is trying to convert that to RTS? Why is that btw? Why RTS people can't take a game for what it is? I like the afforementioned RTS games I listed for what they are, but never within my sanity I would try to even suggest they be turned over to TBS. Why is it the RTS fans can't just enjoy a game but also have to mold it in such a drastic way that it would be a reason for me to not play or buy it? I'm pretty certain alot of TBS fans feel likewise, as I've seen such discussions opened before.

I loved GC2. It is to me all the things MOO3 wasn't. It is the reason I also bought GC (and recently FE:LH, discovering its existance by accident, after a long time of not playing games I didn't like). I am not forcing the developers building this game(GC3) as I would like, as I respect their artistic vision(ofc I WILL provide my input to be used or not as what it could make the details better). But I also wouldn't like it if they did something, just cause some people got vocal about it. I've seen discussions opened like this destroy for me games and franchises I really liked.

You see what you did there? Instilled fear in me, that I might not enjoy this when it comes out. I was eagger to contribute and be a founder on my next paycheck this Monday, before this topic. Now I have to wait till they talk officially about such details.