A question from a beta non-participant

from Stardock Forums
Hello

I've been reading the boards while awaiting this game, and I'm eagerly awaiting this one. I find I'm upset that I haven't got the time to joing the beta!

I have a couple of questions though - they may have been answered in previous threads though so bear with me please...

One of the main problems I've heard of in the early game is the need to expand exponentially in order to survive 'first contact.' How true is this? From what I've heard, most people have adopted a hyper-expansion strategy purely for susrvival in the early game, and it's a little disappointing. Of course I realise these things are due to be addressed later on in development, but for a game that seems to be relying on its different gameplay victory options, the need for every single player to adopt the same opening strategy is worrisome.

How cool would chess be if there was really only one valid opening move that ensured survival?

I feel like a bit of a jerk, mostly because I haven't a clue how to solve this problem. I just thought I'd bring it up because I feel it's an issue and I hadn't seen it discussed anywhere else. What do you all feel about it?

I do have a few more thoughts/ideas, but this is getting long, so I'll wait and see how this is received first.

Thanks, Crowley.
201 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
I suppose that even now if you get Drengin.net subscription, you'll have access to GC beta right away.

I could answer the expansion problem by referring to the chess game too. (Usually) both players try to get the control of the center of the board. Let's say that the expansion phase can be a similar thing. In both cases beeing successfull helps in winning. In both cases is not granted and part of the beta is not to have ONE victory path but counterbalancing strategies like the old stone-scissor-paper game slightly upgraded... ;)

Please post your ideas, likely in separate threads.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
I think with any strategy game, whether it is a board game like Chess or Stratego or one for the PC like Civ X, MOO X or GC board control is key to winning the game. That is basically what the debate about the early game in GC revolves around. Right now GC is still more of a space combat game to enable the testing of the basic functions of the game, that is, ship movement, project development, research, colonization, etc. Once the finer details get in I believe the game is going to play much more different than it does now. Winning through economy, diplomacy, trade, alliances, influence, the United Planets, etc. will all require different strategies, so some changes to how the early game strategy my become needed by the players.

But we will have to wait and see. There is still a whole lot of tuning that is needed, which I expect to happen later when all of the other aspects of the game are in, simply because every feature that gets added changes the feel and the balance of the game.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
'One of the main problems I've heard of in the early game is the need to expand exponentially in order to survive 'first contact.' How true is this? From what I've heard, most people have adopted a hyper-expansion strategy purely for susrvival in the early game, and it's a little disappointing.'

That's partially true right now mainly because most of the game still hasn't been coded, and because the AI is primarily geared for conquest as a concequince.

There are non-expansive strategies that do work right now, but some of them mainly work, again, because the part of the game that they're involved with isn't complete yet.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Starbases should also significantly change the game. See Brad's thread if you haven't already.