Tactical Combat, Curious

I would like to have it in a galciv game, but I don't expect to see it until galciv 3 at the earliest. And thats if a lot of people want it in the game

I am not personally requesting it though I would like Tactical implemented but if there IS, for those that don't want it, could Turn it Off in any game?

Well, the posts #56 and #59 in this thread https://www.galciv2.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=164&AID=88762 give a lot of insight why you shouldn't hold your breath for a tactical combat.

In any case, I am sure that if tactical combat is implemented, lots of people (including myself ) will fell necessary to play the tactical battle to get an edge over the AI.

And if the AI do a good job in tactical combat, why bother not to let it do it.
So at the extreme we can have the following:
- if there are some tricks to win tactical battle, everyone will play the tactical battle to prevent loss and ensure win against great odds
- if the AI is doing a remarkable job, then no one will play the tactical battle (auto resolving it giving same or better results), and the developpers will have spend lots of precious ressources to implements something that isn't used a lot

I don't think you're ever going to see tactical combat. Frogboy seems to be against it, which is a big negative. It also puts more (maybe too much) emphasis on ship combat without adding anything to other aspects of the game (like diplomacy, culture, tech). Stardock wants to make it fun to play all the different paths to victory, not just military conquest.

I remember tactical combat as it existed in MOO2. It was cheesy, tedious, and the AI never did a very good job of defending itself in tactical mode. I would be happy to never see it in any GalCiv version in the future.

I agree with Frogboys assessment that 4X games should be about building the strongest civ,not tactical gimmick battles.

The 4X games that have tactical combat like Rometotalwar,SEIV are joke in the A.I department anyway,making it an exploit.You can never lose

I suppose if we actually got it all we would do is complain about it

yeah in RTW i had 300 long shield cavalry they defeated almost 3000 well equped roman soliders that had numerous advatages in 3 separate battles (round 1000 roman deaths per battle) before they were finally killed

I was going to mention Rome Total War also. Keep it out.

Ehm, I may love games that take place in space the most, but so far RTW is the best strategy game ever. Perhaps I wasn't clear, EVER. If you wish, you can give the AI the control of your army in the battle and watch a movie. Not turn based movie.

Ive gotta defend RTW its awesome

RTW is awesome, more better Barbarian Invasion.
Why? 'Couse I can make a Hungarian Empire with the huns!

RTW has the worst A.I diplomacy of any 4X game in memory.The A.I also has massive economy cheats and it's still lousy.After you win your 200th battle in a row without even coming close to losing, i can't really say that RTW is all that much fun really.Still, the eye candy seems to impress some folk, because RTW is just that,eye candy.

RTW has the worst A.I diplomacy of any 4X game in memory.The A.I also has massive economy cheats and it's still lousy.After you win your 200th battle in a row without even coming close to losing, i can't really say that RTW is all that much fun really.Still, the eye candy seems to impress some folk, because RTW is just that,eye candy.

Agreed. Rome is pretty to look at, but nothing more. Medieval and Shogun Total War are both better games, especially in terms of AI.

well yes it is really looking nice, but the realisation of the eras TW has ...they just made the best job from all now existing ones, yes AI is worse ever i know, but i did think of PvP not single missions or 'campaign'

i did think of PvP

Well, GC ( I and II) isn't build with PvP implemented. Thats is why the AI is so important.

yes i know, and it playes better that some NI (Natural Intelligence )

Whats with all the slamming of RTW? I second the motion about it being the best strategy game ever on a computer. And as for you folks who talk about how easy the combat is and how bad the AI is---huh? Is it possible to beat 4000 troops with 400? Yes, by managing your army, having experienced troops, a great general against a general-less enemy, higher tech level troops, and frankly, smart use of terrain. Even by smart use of these, such victories become almost impossible on the tougher difficulty settings. Sorry, those who call the RTW AI weak just do not know what they're talking about.

Ok,, second issue. No, GC2 is not MoO2. It's already better and deeper. But here's the thing--adding tac combat adds tremendously to the game and takes away nothing, if it is an on off option. Check out the populatirty of rts games that have large scale combat. Fleet size need be no larger than a Starcraft or WC 3 fleet--in the case of starcraft, understand that we are really talking about an old, old game. Yes, it would take resources to implement, but we are NOT talking about state of the art, ground-breaking dev skills. Would RT combat even at a Starcraft level and without the depth of RTW satisfy the living hell out of me and the legion of other fans who really do enjoy the turn by turn small scale fist fight? ABsolutely! One of the joys of doing research and developing tech is seeing its practical effect on a per technology basis. In research, when I get upgraded research capabilties, I get really psyched seeing how much faster I can research stuff. What is wrong with having the ability to sort of zoom in a take my new ships with whiz bang mark V lasers and better armor for a ride? That was one of the really fun things about MoO2. Fighting the same enemy with a single tech shiprevision turns a close loss intoa clear win. That is dramatic in-game postive feedback that gamers love.

If you do not enjoy the feature, dont play it. But dont discourage implementation of a feature alot of people are really hoping for. Who cares if the game is compared to MoO2, as long as these talented people are rewarded for their tough efforts with praise and lots of sales and $ for their brilliant work? If they sell and additional 50,000 copies because of adding the feature, why not do it? If you dont like it, turn it of.

I see this alot in game forums. "The game will not have feature X." "Oh, ok, that's cool. Feature X sucks anyway. I didnt want it. It neve works right. It ruined the last 5 games I played. That WC3 really sucked" Be honest, a great tac combat would rock, and I have no evidence that these guys at Stardock would do anything but a bang-up job. Hey, if I have to wait for an expansion or for GC3 or 4 for the feature, so be it.

On the other hand, this game kicks a@s regardless, Ive alrady preordered it, and I respect the game designers' decisions. Its a feature Id love, and it is a foolish software dev who igniores customer requests for features. But as Ive said, it is a dearly desired feature but by no means a deal breaker. Thanks, Stardock!

RTW AI WAS, I repeat WAS lousy. I don't care what level you play on, it sucked. If it was so good, then why did it suck so bad? This level of play should be kept out for sure. The designers have obviously poored a great deal of effort into making the computer smart on the map. Why throw that in the trash because the AI cant deal with the tactical level. And I am sure it wouldn't be able to. I just have no faith that any AI possible today would be able to provide a chalenge on a tactical level. It requires way to much intuition and creativity. And lets face it, computers are not good at that. RTW looked cool, and ya it was fun for a while. But I don't want eye candy, I want a decent AI. These kind of games were never intended to be eye candy. I think it is cool to be able to evaluate the combat by looking at it after it is all said and done. But I definately don't want the designers to be wasting time on trying to create a good tactical AI. There are just too many variables to think about, and they would be much better spending their time improving stuff that is relavant to a 4X game.

But here's the thing--adding tac combat adds tremendously to the game and takes away nothing, if it is an on off option

Well, since thge developpers haven't unlimited funds and time, for a given budget, implementing tactical battle means throwing something else. And being an off option doens't change anything for developpers since the game must correctly work if the option is set to on.

For me, tactical combat is a must. If the developers of GalCiv2 don't want to put tactical combat in then I'll go with Space Empires.

Hope you enjoy space empires.

I am. Since GalCiv2 won't have tactical the only thing going for it, (as far as I am concerned) is the nice graphics. And that's comparing it to Space Empires 4. So Galactic Civilizations 5 might be comparable to Space Empires 5. Its a shame because I was starting to like GalCiv2.

The game that won most of the awards for best strategy game of 2005 never had tactical battles either.

But here's the thing--adding tac combat adds tremendously to the game and takes away nothing,

I strongly disagree here. Tactical battle detracts from strategy games because the AI almost never is anywhere near as good as a human player at doing them.  Therefore, players who don't like tactical battles will feel required to play them out in order to maximize how effective they are in the game.  This is particularly true in the Metaverse where playing at higher difficiulties results in much higher scores.

GalCiv2 fleet battles will be decided by the tech level of the fleet, not by strategy. You are better off leaving the nice looking computer controlled fleet battles out and just have battles be like GalCiv1. You could then focus on other aspects of the game you feel would make it better. Instead you are wasting resources on somthing a lot of players will not watch after awhile. That is, if you have an option to not watch fleet battles.

UglyCow, you're not even in the beta are you? So why do you feel in a position to give post after post of advice that sounds incredibly out of touch?

We like the full battles. They're neat and fun.  When you make your own game, feel free to make it however you want.