Anyone Miss Space Empire's Weapon/Defense Techs?

from GalCiv2 Forums
Having played extensively GalCiv2 (since Dec. 2005) and demos of SEIII and SEIV, I must say I miss the weapons/defenses system of SE. However, the reason I'm playing GalCiv2 and not SEV, is due to SE's brain dead AI. Once I got the weapon that bypasses normal shields in the SEIV demo, the game was over. I would build cruisers with this weapon and normal shields level V (in the demo I could not research beyond this point), while the AI continued to build cruisers with normal weapons and normal shields. A single cruiser of mine could take out a fleet of AI cruisers. I don't know if the AI was restricted from researching the more advanced shields in the demo but assuming it was it should have built cruisers with this same weapon to bypass my shields and armor which would have provided a limited defense.

In SE you have techs that increase your odds of hitting the enemy (combat sensors) and techs to decrease the odds the enemy will hit you (ECM); plus the odds of hitting a small fighter are lower than hitting a dreadnought but the dreadnought can fire on multiple fighters at the same time. Shields and armor absorb hits from normal weapons before the ship takes damage. There are special advanced shields and armor to counter the special weapons that skip normal shields or armor.

My hope for GalCiv3 is a complex weapons/defenses system like SE while maintaining the quality if the AI (i.e., the AI should design optimal ships based on the strengths/weaknesses of enemy ships). Many have asked for tactical combat in GalCiv. In SEIV the AI was poor at tactical combat so unless victory (without any damage to my ships) was assured, I took manual control which increased micro-management. I would prefer to keep it out so as to keep the playing field more even between the human and AI players.

In short, I would like the more robust combat system (minus tactical combat) of SE added in a future GalCiv3 but not if it cripples the AI (because it can't cope with the added complexity).
warfare
7,714 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You know what this game needs is carriers no space game is complete without it!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Before we even think about adding carriers, we need to rebalance fighters vs. capital ships. I prefer the system in SE where the odds of hitting a fighter are less than hitting a dreadnought but the dreadnought can target multiple fighters. Also, in SE the value of attack/defense is fixed, whether the target is hit is the random element. This system is more like real-life fighter vs. naval ship battles.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Enough with the carriers, man. The fighting is unbalanced and the cost of building war machines is off kilter. Starbases are too weak. Research needs fixing. Capturing infrastructure is more important than carriers.

Stardock will get my money for Dark Avatar because they listen to their players.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You know what this game needs is carriers no space game is complete without it!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!
WE NEED CARRIERS!


this games needs people like you to be gone.

Keep your carriers to your self or to the carriers thread.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Stardock will get my money for Dark Avatar because they listen to their players.


Mine too Wheeloffire, but it would be nice if they made an "all tactics" game. I posted that one elsewhere, but no one cared to respond. Take some of the edge off of the number and statistic crunching. Maybe have the only real "economical" factors things like supply lines/routes or, even though I hate to say it, resource collection. I just want a game with a great AI like GC2 as well as superior tactical warfare. Stuff the virtual reality centers in the void of space... long live the battlecruisers! Just my op  
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As I recall, Brad didn't want GC2 to become a "spreadsheet game" where every action has a formula that governs it. I understand the opposition to carriers and death stars but not tactical combat.

Link your post and I'll respond.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I understand the opposition to carriers and death stars but not tactical combat.

In most games the AI is poor at tactical combat. If the AI is poor at TC then the human player gets an advantage by taking control; if the AI is as good as a human (unlikely) then what is the point of taking control, just click AUTO. By leaving TC out of the game it makes things more balanced between the human and AI player and eliminates a source of micro-management!