Gal Civ and MOO MiM issue, but I'm mostly happy with Gal Civ

from Stardock Forums

Hi Gals and Guys. New here, done a lot of reading, and I’m up to speed on much of this game. I’ve been a deep thinker of 4X space strategy games for a long time. I can quickly discern how a game’s strategy elements or missing elements will effect a game. I know, generally, what the true traditional 4X gamer thrives on and why.

I’m very happy to see a terrific MOO3 alternative here. I see already that I will play Gal Civ more than MOO3. MOO3 needs a major patch of a type that I don’t think they will go with, though I’ve made a significant effort in their forum to explain to them the why’s and wherefore’s of their need for it.


There will definitely be a migration of *thousands* coming from MOO3. Every game box has a Gal Civ ad, for one thing. How Gal Civ managed that, it was a superb move. And many persons besides myself, over at the MOO3 forum, keep talking about Gal Civ.

(MiM = MIcro management. MaM = Macro management.)

MOO3 lacks the ability to “specifically” pick your techs, a key MiM element, and you also can’t learn what techs are on specific enemy ship designs. For me, this breaks the game. That is the patch it needs to bring it all together. What they left out takes so very much out of the strategy of a game that is supposed to be rich in strategy. These key strategy elements were considered to be **integral** and irreplaceable pieces of the strategy scope and tradition. In that respect, MOO3 has not helped the evolution of the 4X space strategy genre, but hampered it. Though it does have some interesting and good innovations that will help it. I can’t understand why a company would want to remove *key* elements of 4X **strategy scope** that were so successful, and that helped so much to absorb a player into the game’s strategy scope. I’d bet the publisher constrained the developer.


You have my support here. Several reasons Why?

Regarding multi player (MP) and single player (SP):

SP is inherent to a good game design and could be said to be the core game. MP requires an enormous development beyond that core. And if a company decides their resources and focus ought to be on making a game with *great*, rich SP features, innovations, and design, then I’d rather have that kind of game than a half-baked MP game because the company’s resources were too spread out.

I believe Gal Civ SP will no doubt be much more absorbing then MOO3 SP.

At this point, I see only one real draw back with Gal Civ. There is no ship design, a key MiM element. Tactical combat would be nice too, but is secondary to the key need to have the strategy element of ship design. There is so much more additional strategy that is created into a game when it has ship design.

Above, I described the reasons why MOO3's not letting you pick techs, nor letting you discover techs onboard enemy ship designs, were serious draw backs. It removed so much the strategy scope. I consider these strategy elements absolutely integral to maintaining the 4X strategy scope and tradition. I consider ship design in the same light.

Yes, let the genre evolve into new strategy areas, but let’s keep the existing **key pieces** of the enjoyment frame and strategy scope in tact. I consider them **integral** and irreplaceable to the strategy scope and tradition of the genre.

Oh man, if you could only add ship design (at least) in the months to come. That would just make this game soooo.... superb. Then I would consider Gal Civ to be *more* than a significant contributor to the genre’s progressing strategy scope and tradition. Tactical combat would be nice, but I know it’s a lot of work.

I am very impressed with several of the new Gal Civ innovations. I believe some of these will also become considered to be **integral** and irreplaceable pieces to the strategy scope and tradition for the genre, and they will surely help the genre evolve into new areas and traditional scope. Nice going !!!!!!

1,168 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
From what I understand, you can "design" your ships statically, in configuration files (think: Civ 2)
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Ship design has always had a large focus in 4X space games. Galciv is slightly different in that military might is not the focus of the game. Diplomancy, trade, influence, population morale, economy and politics all get equal billing with military conquest. If fact you can win a game without even going to war. Its hard to do put you can do it. One of the hardest ways to win is military conquest(At least for me it is).
There is still strategy in military conquest without designing how many lasers or missile pods you have on a ship. The combat is simple but this does not mean there is no strategy.

Does the President design fighter planes. No he makes sure that the armed services has the right funding to get the right planes for the role he wants the military to play.

Try the game when it comes out. Brad is more than open to suggestions. But Brad also has a vision for GalCiv.

Read the articles in the Encyclopedia. Also Brad (Frogboy) has writen a few articles on game design that you can find here.

http://joeuser.com/Articles/Archives.html

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
I find it great Gal Civ had ads in MOO3 boxes, it seemed dumb at first, then i realized someone must of seen the future of MOO3 and guessed that Gal Civ would make a killing of the MOO3 refugees ;p
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
I do thank you for your comments JavaScout.

I understood everything in your first paragraph *already* before I posted; nevertheless, I posted what I did, even having the perception in your first two paragraphs.

I tried to convey how important core strategy 4X elements are to a 4X strategy scope. Certain elements, like ship design, are irreplaceable and integral to the perception and taste of long term 4X gamers.

I did say the game has my support and that I would play, more desirably, than MOO3.

But I still implore the devs to put ship design in later on, for the reasons in my post.

And I hope someone has more info on Uruguru's comments.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
There is a thread on how to modify the ships in the game.

http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?BID=GF&id=18553
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Originally posted by Ion Stream:

"Above, I described the reasons why MOO3's not letting you pick techs, nor letting you discover techs onboard enemy ship designs, were serious draw backs. It removed so much from the strategy scope. I consider certain strategy elements absolutely integral to maintaining the 4X [b] strategy scope and tradition. I CONSIDER SHIP DESIGN IN THE SAME LIGHT."

Please forgive me for using all caps, but I don't see any way to "bold" text, to make a point more clear to the reader.

Let me emphasize again: I love the terrific new innovative ideas which enhance the strategy scope for Gal Civ. A lot of credit is deserving for that.

But I also realize, that removing ship design -- such a key element to the existing strategy scope for 4X, in absorbing a player into a broad strategy scope, will cause you to lose a large segment of your sales.

That is a measure of just how *key* or essential ship design is to this genre.

In GAl Civ, are we able to discover what techs the opponent has? To know this, creates a lot of strategy in and of itself (assuming you can pick techs you need to research to counter theirs).


Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Ion_Stream,
I think you will find the starbases more than make up for the ship design feature.
Starbases play an important role and I think more fit in with a stratgey game than a tactical ship design module. But that is my opinion ;).
Sorry if I restated some of the things you already knew but it might be informative to some of the other people reading the thread.

I look forward to reading your opinion of the game after you have played it.

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
How is ship design a core part of a 4X game? How can one "remove" a feature that was never there? Ship design is a core part of Master of Orion but MOO is not the world.

Let's walk through it though:

...So we add ship design to the game. But to really do it properly we need to add ship battles in order to make those ship designs meaningful.

...So then we add ship battles but to do that right we need to use a 3D engine so that the battles look good for today's market...

...Then we discover that because ship battles are lengthy, we need to have fewer of them but ones that are more interesting so we ditch the individual ship concept and instead use fleets...

And so the resources that went into ship design, the 3D engine, the ship battles, fleets, etc. are taken out of diplomacy, random events, AI.

Game development is a lot like a strategy game too. You have X resources and have to allocate them as best you can. It's a zero sum game. When you're talking about adding a feature you have to ask which feature planned needs to be removed.

And add to the fact that with the changes that would require it would no longer be GalCiv. It would be MOO. And consider that for a second, even as is some MOO fans were claiming GalCiv was a "MOO clone". With the features you asked for, we would be a MOO clone.

I don't want to make a MOO clone. I wanted to make Galactic Civilizations.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Brad's idea appears to be that minimaxing design in ships so that TACTICS in battles eclipse STRATEGIES is a game ruiner, and I AGREE WITH HIM 1000%. That's 10 of me to one of you, Ion Stream. :p LOL

When I could do that in Moo1 and Moo2 I stopped playing... permanently- it was just no fun and to design POOR ships in order to play a more BALANCED game? No thankee, ain't gonna play like dat. Serioulsy, I, unlike you, do not thinkof it as a "core concept" and take exception to your including me, then, as a "4x gammer," I suppose.

Unless Stardock could provide assurances that the tactics of an included ship designer or tactical battle module would not sink strategy, I'll gladly have none of it in favor of stronger diplo, economy, politicial, et. al. features.

I jsut don't see ship design as strategy- it's tactics unless your tech tree is of a divergant nature so that researching one branch precludes researching another and commits you to a style or type of design so your *strategy* has to compensate for your previous choices- which MOO1-2 certainly did not.
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
I need to type faster, the man came to the thread and posted just as I hit SUBMIT... hope he doesn't mind my little speaking out for him. :sniff!:
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
JavaScout:

Thanks for your help. I too hope our discussion will be informative to others.

I checked out your link above regarding ship design. Looks interesting and I can't wait to try it.

And I want to peruse your site.

BTW, I think there is a way that you can get my review sooner. ;) ;) ;) :D

If I'd known 6 months ago about the beta access, I'd have it. Maybe you can discount the beta, now with only 3 weeks to go. :D


In GAl Civ, are we able to discover what techs the opponent has? To know this, creates a lot of strategy in and of itself (assuming you can pick techs you need to research to counter theirs).

Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
I'll second the "no ship design" motion. I didn't mind the tactical battles in MOO2 but I hated having to design ships. Usually I would only design new ships when I had war declared on me (usually for no reason) and had to defend myself. Until I got to Stellar Converters and Doom Stars. Then I'd build a bunch of them and win the game. Everytime. No, I don't need ship design.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
I just want to comment on the Brad Wardell articles... must reads...

Makes me want to start a retail store to cater to the unpublished gamer market... and a game magazine... and so on... and makes me very against becoming a game developer.
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
In GAl Civ, are we able to discover what techs the opponent has?
End of quote


Isn't GalCiv like Civ in this regard whereby you can see he has better units than you at a glance i.e. When his Tanks start hammering your musketeers into the ground?

You'd be able to guess his tech level by the units he is deploying.

I know GalCiv has espionage so maybe their is a steal tech ability? I hated the fact in Civ2 that the AI could steal all your techs easily. They sorted that in Civ3. I hope it doesn't happen in GalCiv?

Sith
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Well, I'm somewhat undecided about this (ship design and tac combat)... It's cool to be able to precisely design ships and use them to the best, but either it's too simple to be really interesting, else tac combat and design/upgrades eat too much time out of the strat game.

I kinda like the idea of Civ-like units with additional bonus due to tech/culture/whatever, but indeed it's les rewarding : "Yup now we discovered BattleShips, let's build a couple..."

Maybe a SMAC-like approach, with simpler design than MOO (just emphasize or not engine/weapons/shields) and still no tac combat but just a stack vs stack quick fight would be a good compromise...

Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
There is one thing, that really insulted me on Moo forum and made me decide not to buy Moo 3 at all (you know, I live in eastern Europe and I cannot afford to pay 60 bucks for game as long as I am not pretty sure it will be a good game :)

Most of the yea-sayers keep telling nay-sayers that "They do not understand the WHOLE NEW concept of Macro scale 4X game - that emparor does not control every bit of empire". If you will understand, you will like the game.

No matter what, this is not true. Macro scale is not the new concept in 4X genre - consider Imperium (Electronic Arts) or Anacreon: Reconstruction, apart from few others. Both these games are really macro games.

Anyway, what I understood, Moo3 is just Micro game that computer plays for you... In macro game, you are not interested in some DEAs or ship designs or buildings on planets or whatever no matter if you or computer builds them... You are interested in planet infrastructure levels, internal trade taxes and subventions, foreign trade, price index...

To say the truth, I would pay dearly to play macro game, it is more appealing for me than micro. However, I am able to say that Gal Civ is really good, if more micro level, game. I will not play Moo 3.

Please, can someone prove me that I am wrong and I should try Moo because it is good macro scale game?
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
Ion:

Yeah, once you've met a race and have developed "Universal Translators" you'll be able to trade with them, and thus see their available techs in the trade screen.
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
About 'ingame shipdesign' in Galciv..

You could always decide to not research some parts of your techtrea (or planet build projects)and focus on other things.

That is also the reason that your battleship may have less attack and defence then an Alterian battleship.
(or high attack and low defence)
You could also have ships to have a higher attack, or build certain facilities on a planet that would make ships (and sb's) have 50% more hitpoints.

If you are not persuing a military approach (atm) you will probably focus on for example 'commerce' or 'Influental' type of buildings.
Which means that your ship won't have the higher defence, then a Torian 1 for example (But you might have more influence, or income, etc)

I know, you are not actually designing parts of the individual ships, but you do control if you want too focus on attack, defence, hitpoints of ships or on other things.

Why ? because usually you cannot build everything.
You *could* research (and build like) everything but you do need to make certain choices in the begin, midgame, in time of economicall prosper or when your (or all) economies collapse.
Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top
A good 4x game should probably have elements of both macro & micro along with options to turn the A.I. on or off. But in my opinion, people don't want to be the Emperor in realistic terms. They want to be God, and simply use Emperor as a title.
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree that ship design and therefore tactical combat do not seem to fit into the GalCiv concept. However they can be a ton of fun in the right game. Here is my idea the future of ship design and tactical combat: Moo3 designers were right in making battles real time. Too many ships to try and pilot them all yourself. The arrangement of them into fleets, with specific ships filling specific roles (point defense, escort, carriers, etc.) is also a great idea; it makes sense and seems more realistic.

What's missing is a sense that your brilliant mind and ideas are coming into play. Here's how to solve it: When you design a ship you can tell it how to react to specific situations via some kind of simple scripting tool. Remember how in Baldaurs Gate (for those that played it) you could select from predesigned behavior scripts for your party? Like, when in this situation do this and if this happens then do that. It didn't work too well because the provided scripts were to simplistic (and your party was doing really stupid things and so most people turned this feature off) and the tool to create your own behavior scripts was to difficult for most non-programmer types to use. This idea is more fully developed in games like MindRover and RoboForge, but the focus of these games is strictly arena combat, and thus this idea is being way under-utilized.

My idea is to allow you to design a ship in detail, tell it how to behave intelligently, and assign it to a fleet. Then when you go to battle, you do not have to engage in a chaotic click-fest or spend 2 hours on one battle micro-managing each ship maneuver. Instead you can watch your fleet in real-time using your designed ships and tactics, learn from the experience, and go back to the design interface and make adjustments. That to me is what a real emperor/admiral would be doing anyway. The game could provide some ship and fleet commanders who have predefined behavior logic for those who don't want to design their own.

Again not right for GalCiv but, perhaps a future Stardock project? :d
Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top
I have been looking at the screenshots of GalCiv and
see some shots of the planet surfaces. I have been waiting for a space game (4X) that lets you explore
& do things on the surface of each planet. Does this
game let you do that? Something akin to the old game
called "Starflight" & "Starflight 2" made back in 1989
and done in EGA (16 color) graphics. You would be able
to build buildings, search for minerals & do mining, all
kinds of planetary stuff besides the space stuff....

JIM
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top
Sorry FAAdmiral Galciv does not include the planet surface stuff.
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
Starflight! Wow that was an awesome game! so deep! Commerce, diplomacy, war, mysteries, etc.

I wish someone would try to do another version with today's graphics and processing power.

Brad, want a challenge? ;)
Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top
If I was going to work on a MOO style game I would indeed have the ship design and the tactical battles. But I'd also want to be able to do the same thing with my land forces so that conquering a planet is similar to a tactical space battle where you design your tanks and ground support units and infantry gear and what not and see that go off in battle.

MOO1/2 were two of my favorite games of all time. I love those kinds of games. But in my view, they focused on military conquest. Other options were kind of side features (i.e. you had diplomacy and such but it wasn't a major focus of the game).

In GalCiv, we set out to create a game where it is just as fun to win by being a trade czar as it is via combat. But in a MOO-style game, the player who likes playing as a trade czar wouldn't be able to help but feel like they're missing out on major parts of the game.

But when it comes to MOO-style games, it's the basic simplicity in concept that I love. Cock-fighting in space. Design your ships, watch them fight it out. A modernized version of that concept would extend to letting players handle the planetary invasion parts like the space battle parts.