Planet types

You mean like Frost tundra planet, hot infernal planet, desert type planet, forest-covered planet.... I agree with this isea to some degree. It is stupid to have all species prefering same planets, and have some planets "good" for all and some "bad" for all. But trouble is, how would you classificate earth? As a desert planet? Or tundra? Or dense jungles and rainforests? Or, most pobably, Ocean wastnes, as 70% of planet is ocean. I want to say, what we classify as "good surface" of this planet takes less than 10% of it.
But still, some planets are still hotter or colder than others, and maybe you should get increased PQ for some panets while other races have decreased PQ for it.

Something that is interesting from RPGs like Diablo: Finding the various random treasures, getting those special magic items and rare goodies. What is that in a 4x game like GalCiv? Is it finding the various random planets?

The possibilities that could exist when you open a chest, or kill that level boss for a monster drop, are many different kinds, and you can hope for a good one, but not know what it's gonna be. Maybe you luck up and get that third ruby for your archer's bow. Maybe you find some interesting new unique item. or maybe just hope for a really good rune (which are extremely rare). But usually you just get some gold, potions, and scrolls, with a ring/amulet tossed in once and a while.

Sometimes I think that this concept -- the Random Treasures Tables -- is sort of in it's infancy with 4x games. Mostly because the planets are the main random treasure; like a level-boss moster drop, they are few and far between.

Well in Galciv you find various random events when colonizing a planet.

Also as far as the different types of planets. That be awsome but I doubt it will be implemented. The "number" system is a legacy of galciv one. Thou you can translate it to the Moo/Moo2 planet designations if you make their planet types linear. A High 20+ would be like a Gaia planet where as a 3 can be a barren. I just dont think that they are keen on a change, especially when their entire system of population and buildings depend on PQ. Thou it's a shame to have it so simplified in a game with such outstanding graphix engine, really awsome one, still it is how they plan on implementing it.

You missing the point, you can CALL the planet type what ever you like ,my suggestion was :

1. Make different technology needed to land on different types of planets.
2. Make speciffic type of planet "native" to speciffic race, others will have negative bonus there until another speciffic for that planet type technology will be researched.

You would still have PQ, and *everything* else same, you would just get bonus/penalty on PQ if it is different type.

I agree, and this could be done in the following way:

- all tiles on the planet are given a specific type (desert, ocean, artic, radioactive and so on)
- all races would have one or more prefered tileset
- a given race would see a planet as habitable depending on it's preferences and would not necessarily use the tiles that another race would use
- this would mean that a planet habitability would not be the same for all races (some balancing required here to generate the map, but I believe nothing unfeasible) ; also, for convenience, planets could be broadly categorized as barren, artic etc. using that classification to generate the appropriate tiles (more tundra and artic on artic planets etc.).
- technology could unlock some (all ?) tiles as terraforaming (and maybe other) techs progress.

For example, a planet could be "moslty" arctic. Meaning when you first land there as a "normal" race, you'd have 2-3 available tiles (likely the equator...). Another race ("artic" race) could see the same planet as beeing quality 20, that planet being well suited for them. A weather control tech (which would have to be built anyway) could then later unlock the arctic spaces and leave them open for terraforming (i.e. they would still have to be individually converted).

Does not strike me as very difficult to implement (most of the mechanism seems already in place), but I may be mistaken.

In addition, I think that most planets should be at least 2 in habitability: 1 for the basic colony, 1 for the appropriate terraforming equipment. And basic, underdevelopped colonies, should drain your treasury.

Then, there could be a classification based on the atmosphere type (oxygen-nitrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methan, none...) ; a planet would be mostly uninhabitable under the wrong type of atmosphere (but good for you if the right type). Under these conditions, only domed cities could survive (if you're the wrong type), which would actually mean very low habitability. The 2 above: as long as you do not have built the appropriate atmosphere converter (generator) you'd be stuck with what basically is an outpost. Good for the long run, a drain in the short view of things. The same could be done with gravity.

Such a mechanism would greatly improve the game : as of now, the problem is to grab the best planets around, and that's pretty all: further expansion means war. With such a mechanism, you could attempt to tread a peacefull expansion path by colonizing the planets that nobody wants. You would also always be faced with the question of whether you expand your outpost number (costly) or just hope nobody grabs empty planets before you claim them (instead of the current strategy where there is an initial rush, then nothing).

Yves

Wow !
That's exacly by idea put in details

I love moi-meme's idea!

*Supporting*
I would really like to hear developers opinion on this

Like I said, sounds awsome, it just wont happen.

I get the feelign the general design of the game is to not make it overtly micomanagement dependant. Thou having certain types of land preffered by different races would be great, to take full advantage of this they would have to implement race migrations and distinguish between which population is which race, which I dont see implemented atm so I dont think it will be.

The problem with the Moo series "prefered planet type" system was that it makes finding the right worlds complicated.

"Hmm I'm surrounded by volcanic worlds and my morale/growth rate sucks on them, so I'll have to turn over big chunks of tiles to make cultural buildings, so the colony will suck but hopefully not rebel."

Or

"I'm at war with the Yor but all their colonies are poisonous atmosphere, I'm going to have a nightmare taking and holding their colonies, but they aren't affected by alot of my world types. I'm screwed."

Balancing and mico management vs hope of added flavour. It's not an easy one. You also have to consider how the AI will handle it.

If you're afraid about balaincing problems, make it an optional feature: all races having same atmosphere / same prefered tileset.

About how the AI could handle this, I think not that bad: Moo did not a bad work with this and I remember Silicoids either screwed up or being the top dog.

Furthermore, there is not that much micromanagement invoved ; in any case, not much more that there already is.

Yves

If you making it optional, then you can probably make a mod for it. This game is supposed to be very mod-friendly.

I like the idea of having tile preferences. For instance, maybe there are ten different kinds of tile, and each race has three of them that it calls green tiles and two that it calls yellow tiles. Something like:

Terran
- Ocean
G Plains
Y Desert
Y Arctic
G Mountain
- Rock
- Dust
G Jungle
- Quagmire
- Lava

Then the overall PQ is just as it normally is (green tile count?) but would be different for each race. That could change the flavor of the early game, about who your enemies are, which planets to race for, and which ones can wait (because the 'enemy' doesn't care).

And the tile frequency distributions could be a function of the star type. So for instance, a Yellow sun might have a larger likelihood of Ocean, Plains, and Mountains, while a different colored star might have more Rock, Desert, and Dust tiles.

Fun for everybody

Actually I think GalCiv (or even GalCiv2) being a great games a quet doll compared to MoO 1.
The diversity of option there was huge and should be a target.
To many options (like in MoO 3) is not good either - could kill a game , turn it to "spreadsheet" like it happened to MoO3.

The secret is to have that all options but :
1. Do not force to use them all in order to win - each one uses his own strategy.
2. Do not show them all the time, the one that want use them will find as he learn the game.

MoO1 done this fine.



Here is a small list of things that was in "antique" MoO 1 but still missing in GalCiv 2 :

1. Planet and atmosphere types + racial abilities relevant + race that can live on "PQ0" planets . Also AI should take this in acount in it's strategy.

2. Espionage path + spy race like Darlocs (not as small adition but as game tactiks).

3. Ground combat path/race with ground combat animation and technologies speciffic to ground combat (I think here additional types of atacks should not only cost money but be RESEARCHED first).

4. Tech tree should be much much bigger, it looks "long" when you start to play it becomes very short soon - not too many technologies there. Also technologies from different scince areas should be "crossed" and not flat branched in the meaning that for example to develop new type of missiles you have to develop new type of engine first and such ...

5. Planetary bombardment should be available for ships with "bombs" modules of cause bombing planets this should affect your diplomacy and aligment.

6. Planetary defences should be researched and available to be built. Under this I mean - planetary shields , planetary bases , defence setelite platforms - so they could fight agains atacking ships in "fleet combat" look that btw should be the only combat even if doing 1 ship to 1 ship combat.
Of cause this as well as 2,3 and 5 should not be a "must to do" but one of the PATHs to play (and win) a game.

7. Weapons have to have range ! We need 2 types of engines or 2 characteristics for engine - one for interstelar trevel and one for "fleet combat" (this way weapons range will come into a play).

Basically to put it simple I believe GalCiv2 should start at least with stuff available in MoO1 and then improve it, add some new things , look for some new things in other games like Star Empires and MoO2 but defenatly not to have less then MoO1.

I agree with Lord KiRon .
I still sometimes play MOO2, just because no other game around that I know has that diversity mix.

Yves

OK IM CONFUSED IVE NEVER EVER PLAYED THE MOO SERIS WHAT IS IT?

Lowa11, OMG! How could you not know Master of Orion

moi, I too play the game a bit here and there. Altough having seen it played at competitive level that just blows your mind, you see that the game design is totally unbalanced :/ I enjoy a game on Kali here and there, nothing fancy. Single player? Hmmm it's simply not a challenge if you played agianst a Human who showed you how the game ought to be played. Moo2 had a cheatign AI, which is never good. But the goodness of it was the simplistic design which made it a breeze to micro (Until you had liek 40 colonies and just gave up on it). The game stayed away from large numbers and sliders. Sliders were the bane of Moo1, but at the time probably best way to get the job done. Sliders are simplistic and inefficient. If you try to complicate sliders, that's when the real problems start.

Altough the biggest problem with moo2 micro management might have been lack of defualt queues And some of the governments were simply unplayable.

Moi Meme and Lord Kiron , these are really very good ideas . Moi Meme, I also I liked some of your ideas in the others threads as well. Very good suggestions.

And, I guess I'm with Lowa11 , only discovering MOO by reading about it in the galciv forums, but couild not find it for sale anymore.