Is anyone surprised at the latest poll result?

Yeah, I'm surprised about it too. I'll bet more advanced diplomacy would be #1 if you added it together with more politics, which I think is the same thing.

Nope not at all, its the truth and nothing but. Been pushing for it for ages. BTW you didn't have trouble posting did you?

I'd love to see tactical battles of some description as long as it can be implemented effectively. Anything from simply different advantages to different weapons (like fast weak lasers vs slow powerful missiles for example) all the way up to full control of the ships and the ability to target different systems on enemy ships...if they implemented it some way i'd be happy

However, i personally (along with a few other people on the forums) believe that it'll be very difficult to get an AI to use a tactical battle system effectively...the more complex the battle system, the more ways there are for a human to exploit it that the AI would not be able to. GalCiv's AI has enough trouble with simple numerical battles...if it would be too much effort to get the AI to use a tactical battle system well, I'd rather go without just to keep the AI as challenging as it is presently...

Finally, a chance to show that Tactical combat is not just something that can be dismissed as something that only a few - very vocal people want to see. Looks like there's a lot more of us, init. Hi people, thankyou! Its for a good cause.

Tactical combat would make the game bigger, much bigger. A leap forward in terms of player options. But that is not to say I don't want improvements in Diplomacy, politics, heroes and whatnot. Its that the magic of Tactical combat would blow those particular features away - BLAM!

To cater for Tak there would be improvements/extensions in:

The AI - gotta code the new Algorithms to enable decent Play and of course some of these refinements will rub off onto the rest of the game.

The tech list will need to be filled out, a lot more branches. To enable concepts such as long range weapons, carriers, mega powerfull guns which need time to recharge, space marines and boarding ships. Gosh the list is potentially endless...

The actual gameplay: We are going to be able to direct our forces, sudden pushes forward. Flanking. Enveloping, Tactics, tactics, Tak-tics! We are going to get more!

....If we get it of course

And this would tie in nicely for that aggressive races and smarter AI choices that might be joining the party fairly soon...What fun!

Things are definitely looking up for GC2. What do you think?

Hi!

I for one would love to see tactical battles

I don't. And if the game would get them, I'd like to have an option to turn them off.

BR, Iztok

The features I am still missing the most is a decent system for covert ops and espionage! Why is that not on the list of features? All that other stuff, OK, I'll take it. But the espionage system is really shallow in GalCivII- to the game's detriment IMHO.

There was a poll not too long ago, that showed that only 1/3 of players gave a flying squirrel about tactical combat. Obviously most of the other 2/3 either don't want any of the other things from this poll either, or have not voted yet.

Does anyone here play the hard core wargames? Recently, we've been blessed with a number of great wargames like Crown of Glory and Hearts of Iron Doomsday. The political and diplomatic AI in those games is far ahead of anything else I have ever seen. There is a great wargame, where you get to move armies around, and then there's a great political game, which provides the context for moving those armies around. Considering that Stardock published "The Political Machine", I would have thought that diplomacy and politics for GalCiv would have been a shoe-in. I say leave the tactical battles to the new Star Wars game, which is very good at doing those.

The features I am still missing the most is a decent system for covert ops and espionage! Why is that not on the list of features? All that other stuff, OK, I'll take it. But the espionage system is really shallow in GalCivII- to the game's detriment IMHO.

Because this is already in the expansion.

I can't stand tactical combat, and want the option to turn it off. Basically, no-one would want to turn off more diplomacy options, as they are all better. A lot of people would want to turn off tactical combat.

I want the ability to scream "GIT ORF MOI LAND!" and not to choose which damn laser to shoot this time.

I'd want heroes. Like a moving military starbase... but it's a ship!

I agree with Marcathonas- some people are against tatical battles (including myself), but everyone would like better diplomacy options.

I'd like to see it but i think it would get pretty tedious if it was too complex, I think I would get into press all the same buttons all the time mode,

I'd maybe like to see some simple options maybe hit and run, one shot and out of system if your ships are fast enough (maybe you get away with but theres a chance you don't dependant on speed and sensors difference of ships). Or fight to X points and retreat or at least try to, again on chance dependant on speed and relative sensors on ships. Or plain stand and tow it out. Those options would allow me to fight guerilla campaigns against superior opponents, to harass them with smaller faster sensored up ships if they send their deathstars into my space. Gradually wear them down a long way from home. It also gives an additional tactical edge to sensors.

At the moment might is right and theres not a lot you can do to take tactical advantage. The only effective tactic i have found to temporarily stop heavily superior opponents is to have transports on standby and snatch a planet or two while they rampage through my systems, then trade those planets back for peace.

regards stodge

I would've voted twice, if I could've.

One vote for Multiplayer. Honestly, who hasen't wanted to see what people (as in: not AI) would do in certain situations? Like if someone played Thalan and started in a remote corner? Not saying that the AI is bad, or anything.

The other vote would be for more sophisticated ship design; namely the ability to place hardpoints yourself. I'm sure a ton of people would appreciate that.



...Although tactical combat would be cool, now that I think about it.

I am a little surprised at the poll results. I've been a proponent of tactical battles since early on and was always forced to just shake my head at how vigorously the "No Tak Kombat Klub" fought the idea of this option. Their arguments were usually so forceful [and unreasonable] that I thought there must be a whole herd of them. The poll makes them look like a small, loud-mouthed minority.

A couple of weeks ago, in another thread, Stardock stated that there would be no tactical combat in Galciv2. Since then I've been hoping that it would be implemented in Galciv3 when and if it is ever released. Perhaps the results of this poll will persuade them to do it a little sooner.

"Pole" result?

everyone would like better diplomacy options.

I don't. How do you know that the AI could use them properly? (It has trouble enough with diplomacy as is) If this was implemented, I'd want to be sure that the human player would gain no advantage from it, so I could ignore diplomacy totally and not be disadvantaged in any way whatsoever.





OK, I actually do want more diplomacy options. But I just couldn't resist twisting the old favorite arguments to fit the diplomacy system. I didn't have to stretch far, that's all just as relevant to diplomacy as it is to tactical combat.

Yeah I know...I noticed that once I put it up....oops! Although the discussion is about the "Poll"...I am almost afraid to ask about others "pole" results.

I guess it's on topic If we do get tactical combat in any incarnation of Galactic Civ it would be great if we could design ground combat units (Drengin shock troops could be even more shocking;)) , and have a ground combat viewer to watch planetary combat from different angles. It'd put Attack of clones massive battles to shame. I think those things may be doable for the sequel, to take advantage of the DirectX 10-compatible graphics. Though I really want tactical combat, I'd go for enhanced politics and diplomacy features.

Recently, we've been blessed with a number of great wargames like Crown of Glory

Hold on. Have you actually played Crown of Glory? I have. And in my opinion it is a terrible game. And its "political and dipplomatic" system is one of the games most screwed up features.

My vision of tactical battles would not be he micromanagement that so many of you are afraid of (which laser to shoot, which gun to shoot at, etc.). I think the best tactical model I have ever seen is in Combat Mission. It allows you to plot your moves and then play a 1 minute movie play back. The system, in most cases, will shoot and defend on it's own based on where you order your troops to move. The AI in that game is pretty good and uses the system very well IMO. I think that type of battle sequence would be well served in this game.

Tacitcal battles would be ok so long as they are not real time. If they are they might as well keep it the way it is now.

Real time tactical battles on these games involves right clicking on a unit, waiting, right clicking on the next unit, waiting, right clicking, etc etc etc. I was some MOO2 style battles, ships with all kinds of cool special abilities, etc. Real time will be just like it is now except you get to choose where all the ships first fire.

None of this will matter though because i'll only be playing SE5 if they dont have multiplayer.

My explanation for tactical battles leading the polls is that it was given in the context of an expansion pack. If Stardock focused on a tactical AI as an addition in an expansion pack it could be done so that it's not a pretty mish-mash of cheesy exploits. This would not be the case if it was included as patch content, which is what a lot of the vocal opposition was arguing against. I voted for more detailed ship design, because I want to make ship construction more meaningful and less rock, paper, scissors, but if a good tactical combat system was implemented those sorts of changes would probably follow naturally.

I voted for tactical battles.

I don't know what is with implication that Stardock somehow "dismisses" the idea.  What people here have asked for (often loudly) that we just throw in tactical battles as a patch or an "expansion" and my answer has always been the same - no. It's too major of a feature to throw in. 

In Galciv 1, ship design was the thing people wanted in there and our answer was the same then.  If you take the time and have a feature as part of the base design, it can have much better results.

I am, however, surprised at how poorly multiplayer did. I thought it would be at least #2. 

Hmm MP players are the ones who tend to say 'No' to tactical combat (cos it slows down the game), so it kind of makes sense, that SP gamers mostly want TC.

The option 'More sophisticated ship design' will probably go hand in hand with tactial combat I think. Unless we get a pretty lame 'tactical combat', where you pick an option A-C and the opponent picks and option A-C and depending on what you two pick , a bonus or penalty gets applied.

I like the idea of being able to fight out tactical battles - if I want to. I don't get giant chunks of time in which to play, and I know I won't want to stop and fight it out every time one of my squadrons overruns a pair of Heavy Fighters. If you go this route, Stardock, please make it an option, like Full Fleet Battles are now.

I would be much more excited to see the political/diplomatic/espionage facets of the game come alive with more advanced options and interactions. Like, what if your operative in the Drengin Empire became a double agent and fed you bad information? You assemble a special strike force and gamble everything on a mission to take out their Tir-Quan Training facility on Gonadopolis III... only to find out that it's not really there. You click around to find out that it's on Gabe II. Or is it?

Surprises keep the game from being the same each time, and a game that makes me use my head more than my mouse is going to keep me coming back for more.