double-post.

Ok.  But we weren't talking about influence.  We were talking about interstellar societies mingling.

You said: "Given that SD has stated there is a long, convoluted, pre-written backstory to the GC universe, this seems like a safe assumption.  I find it hard to imagine they could change whether interstellar societies mingle without significantly rewriting their history."

You assume that this backstory involves substantial interspecies mingling, and thus was the birth of the influence system. Even if that's true, gameplay trumps story, especially in a TBS game. If they find a better influence system that doesn't work under this model, they should use it. Period.

Not really. Sorry, but they tend to be poorly structured and present little information that other people aren't already presenting in a better, more coherant way.

Well the fact is, that while the player may not need planets full of ships to protect them, the AI does.

I tend to leave a ship in orbit at every planet (usually a small hull) just in case, or if I need it to go blow something up nearby. If I have a planet that is very close to someone else's planets, I will have many more units just orbiting and doing nothing.

But all players play differently, there's no 'right way'. If a player only feels comfortable having 8 massive dreadnaught's in orbit of every planet, so be it. Sure that's not very effective but oh well.

The AI, on the other hand, should keep 8 powerful units on every single planet, regardless of where that rock is, because the AI is not smart enough (and won't ever be smart enough), to actually be able to create tactical offensive planetary protection fleets (which these types of defenses are also ships floating around doing nothing, although it is a better way to defend areas). The AI (at most that I've ever seen) has had 3, maybe 4 defenders.

If they buff up defense, it wasn't in hopes that it would be easier for me to defend my own planets (since it's an extemely rare occasion to have a planet actually attacked, neverless taken, and I've yet to actually ever have this happen), but was more to help out the AI... it gets somewhat boring when you can piledrive through AI planets, even when you are technologically behind.

EDIT: It has been stated that it is not 'economically feasible' to have planets in orbit... Near mid-end phases of gameplay, it's almost difficult to NOT bring in huge amounts of BC / turn . With 50 planets, having/keeping 4-5 defenders on border planets would only cost an additional 500BC / turn at MOST and probably less... it may not be economically feasible, but for the AI on harder difficulties, they should make the AI keep 8 powerful defenders on every single planet, and ships in orbit gives the AI free maintenance costs on them.

A bit off topic, but just wanted to throw this in:

To be honest, I hope they balance the game a bit better... I'm not sure how much playtesting was done near the end development stages of GC2, but I'm sure they would have no trouble finding playtesters to give feedback of a GC3. Balance issues will always exist, and being that they went with completely different tech trees and abilities for all different races in ToA, created a game balance nightmare.

I'm sure that using GC2 as a major stepping stone, GC3 will be much more refined and will most likely eliminate many of the problems and issues found in GC1 and 2.

Perhaps I will start playing zero year games, since small and tiny maps don't have many of the issues that larger maps do.

I didn't say that the combat troops left at home are doing nothing, I just meant to show the numbers.

I know that the military forces that are left on defense are training, inducting (more like abducting, joking btw) new recruits, and all that jazz.

So in order to make the game slightly more interesting, any ships in orbit would affect the base morale, production, soldiering on that planet. For example, too many ships in orbit (providing that you can have more than 10 in GC3, preferablly 20 at the least) and the morale will plumet (due to the fact that the people will feel oppressed, this also depends on wether or not you have recentley invaded that planet, or other morale-affecting events such as a recent tax raise), but production will increase by a certain amount (5-10% margin seems fair to me), sortof like the Egyptians using slaves to build their pyramids, all of it was based on oppression (and to some extent the god-like reverence of those rulers, caused by religion). However, if you have just the right amount of ships in orbit (like 5-10) the morale of that planet will increase, because the populace feels more protected (this could also be based on the attack power and not just the number of those ships. This would of course also depend in some way on what kind of combat system would be implemented in GalCiv3.

To go along with the recruitment aspect of the game, only a percentage of the overall population is actually recruited to become soldiers. I don't know what the system is for GalCiv2, but if a recruitment system would be implemented into GalCiv3, I think that military ships should help raise the maximum amount of people that you are allowed to recruit to become soldiers. Let's say that on a 6 Billion pop. planet, you are only allowed to recruit 25% of the population into the military (I don't care if it is realistic, this is only an example), this is without any bonus offered by researching a tech, building a social project, finding an anomaly, whatever. This is just the base value in all games. Now if you had some ships in orbit, that number would increase (not exponentially, but by something like 5-7% max). This could mean the differance between victory and defeat in a planetary invasion. 

Those military ships could also keep your planet from subverting culturally (not indefinately, but long enough for you to do something about it). It would be a bit like propaganda, they would either be brainwashing, or subliminally messaging to the public that their civilization's culture is the best, and that all the rest, are bat guano for all that the public should care (if they know what's good for them, I see an ethical decision in the works here.....). This could also be used to help subvert an enemy planet culturally as well, it would put you at major odds with the other civilization, but, you'll have one more planet that they don't (and who knows, it just might have 3 Precursor Mine bonus tiles as well, mwahahahahahaha).

Also for planetary defense, a new social project. BTW I'm thinking along the lines of Star Wars Empire At War. There could (not should, could) be a social project in the game that would be sortof like an Ion Cannon. If a fleet would be in orbit around a planet with just such a social project, it would be like having an extra ship in a way (of course it would take a couple of turns to recharge/reposition itself/aquire a target). It would be able to fire a laser round out into space from the begining of combat, doing a certain amount of damage to a certain target (yes this would be random, unless Stardock decides to make Real-Time Space Battles an option/feature in the game). This attack would take place wether it was the defender's turn or not. You would probablly only be able to build one, since any more would be really unfair.

How is this for coherent Alfonse?

My replies have usually been incoherent the past while, because I have other matters to deal with (namely school work), and it usually takes alot of time for me to read through the replies. So by the time I actually get to write a reply, I have to be as quick and precise as possible. And there is also so much to cover and reply to in this post that it is a tad bit overwhelming, I can't possibly reply in detail to all the replies here. I'd love to, but I can't, since I'm usually too wrapped up in schoolwork. If all of this was taking place during the summer, I actually would reply in very precise (and structured) detail to everything here.

I do want this post to keep going though, I don't want it to go dead yet. We must make it to a 1000 replies at least (my personal hope is 3000 replies, big number ain't it). I would also like to hear what others have to say about my ideas (like the Starbase Starport that I mentioned a few replies back), I haven't really had much time to refine my ideas and then present them. So I wanted to see what other people would imagine it to be, what should be the specific numbers behind it, and whether or not it would be a good idea in the first place, or would it be too far-fetched, etc.

And even though Galactic Doom has a good argument going about his combat system, It is in a way off-topic. I'm not saying that I want it to stop, by all means, continue!!! All I'm saying, is that for about 150 replies, all this post has been, is an argument about a combat system, that may or may not be implemented into the game. If Stardock does decide to "consider" it however (keyword is consider btw), then we can start arguing about it in more detail. However if it means that much to you guys/girls (there are women that play this game to), then you can continue the argument, in fact, I'll give you my blessing. 

However, the point is, that I would like to see some new (and I mean really NEW) ideas being put forward by the community. So if you would be so kind as to do so, please advertise this post on any others that you may be replying to. Just put a good word in about it, and ask other people to share their ideas. If you also see something that would be a good idea, and something that can be implemented into GalCiv3, then you can mention it yourselves here on this post. 

So there is my rant. I really hope that more new ideas will be put forward, and that the ideas that have been put forward, can be refined to a larger degree.

So till next time........

Don't stop arguing (it is a very good argument).

But do remember to put in some new ideas.

Thanks

Rock On!!!!!

And to those of you that are arguing.......

LET'S RAGE!!!!!!  

That's a great idea. Build an Ion Cannon and be able to upgrade it's firepower as the game goes on, to keep up as ships gets stronger. Granted, it could be laser based, or missle based. Mass drivers would be the least feasible idea, since generating that much power to propel matter through an atmostphere (although small) would likely not make them as capable, but it's a game, so who cares. Every turn the land-based weapon would get a free shot. The range of these seemed to be only for ships in orbit (from what it looked like in Star Wars), so once a defensive fleet in orbit is destroyed, the invasion fleet would no longer continue to take fire from it. Plus it would look cool to see a huge beam blasting some unsuspecting ship from the planet.

To avoid taking up 'precious tiles' that would be better used for your empires development, Stardock could implement a few defensive only tiles (that don't count as the class of a planet), and the player would be free to build whatever defensive structures he/she feels is necessary. After all, 1 ion cannon would hardly take up the whole North American landmass to build and operate.

Including the AI! If they did that to even a small degree, I believe it would be a first for these types of games. Replayability is one of the things Brad has said they aim for GC to achieve. This would be a HUGE replayability factor. Stick a XML AI file in there.

I believe that change was made in Dark Avatar, where each weapon attacked seperately. If in a fleet, once the first enemy ship is destroyed, all ships would have something of a supershot with all weapon values combined on the next target.

Dread Lords had each weapon type (laser, etc) fired one at a time. DA was somewhat a strange thing with the whole supershot going on.

But I do like the idea of per-weapon of each ship each round, and the ship they fire at and hit will continue to wear down it's defenses until depleted (kinda how it is anyways), BUT... Defenses, imo, should not renew every round, but perhaps after every battle, or even every turn (probably after every battle though). This would make smaller ship fleets slightly more useful against larger ships.

After all, when a ship loses it's defenses, they usually don't 'get them right back up' 5 times in the middle of an intense battle. As long as they give the AI the ability to do some sort of 'power check' to see if it can win a battle or not, or come close... cause right now the AI really only uses  kamikaze type death attacks, with no idea if it could possibly win or not.

Simply place 9 Ion guns on every planet, and never ever put a ship in orbit ever again.

That is correct. 

This is utterly irrelevant.  The specific topic was interstellar societies mingling with respect to technology being cheaper to research as more civilizations researched it.  It was not a defense of the current Influence system.  Influence was brought up only because the Influence system (currently) mentions that it is based on "food, clothes, music" spreading from one civ to the next, which implies lots of interstellar societal mingling.  Maybe you are just confusing the different arguments you're involved in.  Sure, let's go with that.

I, too, would support an improved Influence system.  However, I think it would be stupid to retcon the idea that civilizations mingle.  Rescoping the world to be isolationist detracts from diplomacy AND from the culture war.  If the goal is to drive the game towards being strictly militaristic in scope, I would resist.  This is a Bad Goal.  While it is not strictly self-contradictory, it seems unwise to argue for diversifying strategy while simultaneously asking to narrow the scope of the game.

As an aside (or, rather, as an answer to Extant's plea for different ideas to show that I, at least, am not dismissive of others, har har), I think the answer to diversifying fleets is tactical combat, not buffing defense... 

...but Chess is fun, and if SD were to incorporate pieces of Chess in GC3, I would not personally complain.  You'll note, also, that in Chess the agressor has the advantage.  That pawn beats the queen when it is attacking.  The queen is a stronger piece because it attacks in more directions.

Yeah, see, that sounds dumb.

However, I agree with Alfonse that "more of the same" is sub-optimal.  "Randomly different" is not good, either.  Well-designed different ++.  Actual tactical control in combat, combined with creative fleet and support modules, makes for diverse fleets.  Also, it makes for game-balance developer Hell, but we are not in charge of that.  Har har.  I would love to see modules that create a sort-of terrain in combat, perhaps by areas-of-effect, where one (or two) is enough, less is terrible, more is unnecessary.  Would micro-managing fleet creation be a pain-in-the-ass?  Not if the interface (or maybe production rules) were changed to make it easier.  And GC could definitely use some work on the interface, anyway.

Also?  Tactical combat under the We-Go turn-based rules.  Hell yes.

So do the game design concepts I'm mocking. Alphonse wants to buff defensive fleets to the point where a much superior fleet has trouble breaking through, if they can at all. After inducing a defensive stalemate, he wants to introduce "something different", which would take the form of some sort of super weapon. Perhaps a useful form of terror star, or a more selective planet desruction system. Maybe even the GC equivalent of a Novalith cannon, allowing you to destroy a colony without battling the fleet at all. Whatever these weapons are, the entire point behind them would be to bypass or negate the defensive fleet in orbit - a function that wouldn't be necessary if those fleets weren't buffed to a nonsensical level to begin with. He's creating a problem solely for the purpose of introducing his solution to it.

BTW, the instant transport idea won't work for a couple reasons. First, Brad has said the AI simply can't deal with this effectively. Perhaps that could change for GC3, but I wouldn't bet anything on it. Second, it doesn't get you anything current engine techs can't do, other than not needing to put engines on the massive ships you already have.

Tactical combat is much the same way. There is no way to program an AI that can compete with a decent player, making tactical combat into a player exploit. Give me tactical control of a few ships and I'll tear any sort of mixed fleet apart, and almost certainly without taking losses. I've done it in other games, the very lack of tactical control is a selling point for GC2. AI control is simply too predictable to compete, unless BOTH sides have to use it.

I'm not familiar with that term, and apparently neither is Wiki. Care to elaborate?

Quite simply, no. If we take your 50 ship example to be what you intend, the offensive player and defensive player are spending the EXACT SAME on their fleet. So the turtler will have the same research, the same production, and the same economic power. AND an artificially high defense.

Except that the current mechanics don't work that way. Doubling the power of ships is more than a 100% effectiveness boost (try taking a 4/4 20 hp ship with two 2/2 10 hp ships. They won't break even.) Even assuming you meant a doubling of effectiveness (whatever that means in terms of combat mechanics, especially ones we don't yet know details of), a 9 on 19 fight is going to go to the defense more than half the time.

Of course any competent player is going to attack the weaker worlds, then flip the fortified ones with influence. It's how the AI deals with it that matters, and it simply isn't smart enough to do this on a consistent basis.

Brad IS the AI programmer. When he says it's not possible, I tend to believe him.

The same can be said for the 40+ speed transports everyone uses for surprise attacks now. Or even the 20+ speed battleships. Even the AI occasionally uses 10+ speed ships, giving at most one turn's worth of warning from clearing the shroud to attacking a planet. The only way that random jumps would be a viable surprise tactic is if the attacking fleet arrived and could attack on the same turn, and that would be right up there with tactical combat in terms of things the AI can't cope with or use effectively itself.

Brad and the few need some help doing all the AI programming. There is obviously not enough people at Stardock that are knowledgable in AI to be able to get these things done. Brad has said he works well over 40 hours a week on this stuff (probably more like 50-60), but there is obviously too much to do.

I found an old thread mentioning a problem they had with GC2 waaaay back in the day where Brad stated:

That was written back in April 2008, the bug still exists! The AI work is obviously overloaded and there is not enough help.

The reason Stardock needs to force AI's to do certain things to MAKE them stay competitive for GC3, because even as skilled as Stardock is overall, it seems they are trying to do waaaay too much with too little. Stardock afterall has stated they are attempting to make AI that acts just like a human would.

I had in mind something more similar to a 'ship transport', which could jump within a certain radius, drop off it's load of ships, and then instaneously jump back. Similar to a WW2 plane dropping off paratroopers. The Ship Transport would only be able to carry so many ships (based on a logistics level), and would not be attack capable, since the 'jump engine' would take up the whole ship in terms of design space. So Not defending your worlds, AI jumps a few Ship Transports in, and takes all your worlds with combat transports.