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 !!!!!!