Well to begin it is civilization in space with a few different ideas to do the same thing. What this means is it is empire expansion by colonizing and collecting taxes. DiffErent factions have different abilities and techs in a two d turn based environment. How come people seem to love games no matter when they came out. I don't want to see galactic civilization become a real time stradegy game. I like. Some of the elefeatures dont change the games but miss turn based gamesim not done with what I like about galactic civilizations. If the next game is a lot like galactic civilizations two only with more races and a bigger map and a better tech tree then that is good.

I simply do not understand the issues people have with tactical combat.  It adds depth and fulfillment.

 

On the Steam forums I have suggested and continue to suggest, that it Tactical Combat can be auto resolved, or minimally resolved, or played out, depending on the players needs at the time.

 

So you never want to engage in tactical combat?  Fine.  Auto Resolve.

Built a new class of vessel and want to see how she performs?  Chose Cinematic Resolution

Want to command your vessels to victory, turn by turn, all 200 of them?  Click the Fight! button.

 

One can find innovation in bettering a system of turn-by-turn tactical combat.  I simply cannot see why adding another dimension to the game is a problem.  We're paying enough for it.

 

If I repeat myself (which I don't really intend to), I apologize, but . . .  it seems to me that erring on the side of giving players MORE choice, not less, ought to be the goal of a great game.    You may not choose to fight every battle on the map tactically, but you may choose 1 or 2. 

ESPECIALLY when you factor in the multiplayer element, tactical combat can be very rewarding, and the difference between a guaranteed win and a stunning upset.  Isn't that what strategy games are all about?

 

Captain Tolan T. Grimm, Grand High Poohbah,

Glorigoth

The Grimmian Union

 

I totally agree. I want tactical combat in this game and I hope we'll get it one one day via expansion.

 

DARCA

The problem with adding TC is that it would probably destroy the battle viewer system, which while good in GC2, I expect will be great in GC3.  I can't imagine anything cooler than designing a fleet of starships and watching a dramatic fleet battle unfold.  

 

If I want to play tactical battles I'd play a tactical game.  I want to play a civilization expansion, empire building game, so I play Civ and GalCiv.  It's two different kind of games.  I'm not opposed to making pre battle strategic choices, but clicking each little ship and clicking a target over and over seems boring and tedious to me.

I agree, with charon there, galciv3 does not need tactical battles, this is a civilization game, adding tactical battles (Total War series) draws out the game a lot longer, and gives the faster auto resolve a handicap.  This unfortunately is why I find myself not playing that series too much as I've rarely completed a game and if I try to use tactical battles, I get bored after the first 20 or so and move on to another game.

 

I like a lot of the new features in GC3 even though most of them aren't in the alpha.  I don't like Black-Holes as seen in the last podcast, will they gobble up ships? doesn't matter there just so unrealistic but then there is an option to disable them. 

And I'm also a longtime player of the GalCiv series [check my join date].  Twilight was the best version but it had its shortcomings although the ship designer wasn't one of them, unlike the planetary invasion screen.   I would like more Tactical Combat but not complete micro-management, and I'm guessing that that's what I'll end up with via the Fleet Designer, except I'll probably still have a mediocre Planetary Invasion screen and mechanic.

And for all those who probably were never in the GalCiv1 beta and just have memories of Dread Lords or later, I know that 3-D maps were introduced at some stage in a Beta version although you will not find any trace of it now as only final version builds remain.  I will admit that the 3-D version didn't last long, only 1 or 2 iterations of beta but it was implemented in 32-bit technology ten or more years ago.  It was only a map of around 15x15x3 or maybe 25x25x3 , the size is immaterial - the point is I know it existed in a GalCiv with Windows'95 with 6-faced Cubes.  it worked well and it puzzles me still as to why it was abandoned.

So basically I agree with the original poster and agree with whoever it was that said a lot of you just want GalCiv 2.5, although I'm begining to believe that GalCiv2.5 will probably be Fun when it's first launch final version is available.

We are fully in control of diplomXcy.

We are fully in control of eXpansion.

We are fully in control of eXploitation.

We aren't fully in control of eXtermination.

 

we are missing a huge fan base, and fun. It only adds gameplay. This isn't totally new, many 4X games try to have TC and have two combat options that work fine.

Apart from the hard core nay sayers of times past, alot of frequent users want this, enough to actually do it.

In a game called total war, I don't expect there to be a balance anywhere.

Do you have any prove for that? Because I have a hard time believing, that the devs went from 2D map in the alpha, to 3D map at some point in the beta, and then back to 2D again. That's just way too much work. However, if that actually was the case, then it's even more puzzling, that when somebody asks why the map is in 2D instead of 3D, none of the repliers (not even Frogboy and Kryo) mention, that the devs tried 3D maps, but abandoned the idea.

Schaefespeare, show me a 3D map design on a 2D monitor that doesn't get garbled and confusing when rotating or moving units.  Also show me a non-complicated way to move a ship from X,Y,Z to X1,Y1,Z1 by point and click versus typing coordinates every time. 

I agree I would love a playable 3D design, however, I haven't seen any that are practical.

 

Hmmm that makes sense, lucky jack, gaunathor, and the devs would have mentioned it. So I think he's lying and trolling. (at least for now I do.)

thanks gaunathor for the info! +1

 

DARCA.

Hexes are excellent to have on a planet landscape whereas a serviceable 3D map (or a clever illusion of one) would be tremendous to have in a space game. Oh well, maybe next time.

Here's hoping that this evolution will be a success.

You can all disbelieve me if you want to and think I'm trolling and of course you expect me to deny it as I do deny it.  I have no proof and can't provide any because, as I said, only the final builds are available.  I just have the memory of playing in a 3-D GalCiv beta.  I am not a programmer although I have studied programming [for business primarily and many years ago] therefore I'm not able to build a demonstration either.  While you may think these are just excuses I know it's the truth.

Maybe LuckyJack doesn't want to remember or just doesn't because maybe he missed it, we were all probably a lot busier in 2006; same goes for Gaunthor and I'm not calling you liars either, I'm not trying to get personal with insults or whatever.  I'm just stating for the record what I remember playing and perhaps it wasn't true 3-D engine-wise but just some trick to make it look like 3-D but it certainly had the feel of real 3-D with the ability to move up. down, either side and backwards and forwards into adjacent spaces.  You didn't need to alter your perspective, in those days pretty much all games had only one plane of view, except for "Populous : The Begining" .

 

If what you said is true, then there would be proof for it out there. Screenshots, forum posts, mention of it in previews, etc. Also, changing the map from 2D to 3D (and back again) is non-trivial, so you'd expect there to be dev journals about why the devs decided to make those changes. However, I couldn't find anything.

From what I've read, the beta for GalCiv 2 began March 2005 (here is a post for Beta 2) and ended early 2006 (Frogboy's IT'S GOLD post is from Feb. 7th 2006). Maybe Lucky Jack, or anybody else who was in the GalCiv 2 beta, can clarify how beta-access worked back then. However, if it was anything like it was for DA and TotA, then you'd at least need a Stardock-account to buy the game. So, unless you've got an older account, or knew somebody who got access to the beta, I don't see how you could've played it.

I'm not calling you a troll, or a liar, but I do question your memory. Are you absolutely certain, that you are not thinking of a different game? Sword of the Stars 1 has a 3D map, and it was still in beta in April 2006.

 

You just don't have the level of control you want.  Games that combine Civ building with tactical battles up being primarily war focused.  The tactical part tends to take over the game.  Remember, GC is already a game without tactical battles, and I love it that way.  So I love GC for what is is, you are trying to turn GC into something that it isn't.