It would also enable players to find clever ways to take planets with far less troops. People with lots of time on their hands having the advantage even more so for metaverse scores.

The ground battles seem the same as what your brother disliked. However, I'm not sure what he expects.

This is a 4x game - and like any 4x game, this is about strategy, not tactics. Its about the macro, not the micro. Battles are nice, but this game isn't about battles, its about building a good economy, it's about managing diplomatic relations with an enemy that could easily wipe you out, and it's about finding a long-term strategic solution that turns the tables and allows you to eventually pacify that enemy, be it through war, influence, or diplomacy.

Asking Galciv II to have good ground battles is silly. It's like asking why, in an RTS, you can't jump into your tank and shoot at the enemy. After all, the AI is undoubtedly less capable, and many RTS games these days have an underlying randomness which add or detracts bonuses, such as the Dawn of War series. If the player could take matters into their own hands, the outcome would rely more on skill. But it's not a shooter, it's a RTS - to jump into the tank would violate the structure of the gameplay. The skill of pointing and shooting is not the point. In Galciv 2, the skill of commanding troops or ships in battle is not the point. Battles are exciting and stuff, I understand, but the point of Galciv2 is not the skill of battle, it's the skill of guiding and managing an empire - that means the factories and the population much more so than it means the ships.

Thank you to some one who understands what I was trying to say, and said it much better than I did.

If the randomness, and lack of control of battles bothers your then you need to expand your gaming to include games that do allow you to do that.

Thank you Facelessclock for saying what i could not quite get out.

You know what? That makes sence and I understand. I do like the game very much, and in fact it is the *only* game I play, well except for chess against chessmaster; because of there being to may cheaters online playing chess that run a chess program in the background and then paste its moves in for theres.

Wow, this thread has really started to stir something up!

Certainly not my intention, however the issue seems to be going off at a tangent a little...talk about inaccurate whispers, some people need to go back and reread some of my earlier posts, as they appear to be posting an answer to a question I never asked.

I have nothing against luck being a part of anything or everything. It's a fact of life, luck is involved in everything we do, whether it be crossing the road; getting out of bed; or going for that job interview.

But please, try and hide the luck mechanics from view whenever possible. We like to feel that we have some control, even if it is an illusion. The advantage roll part of Galciv1/2 reminds me of a game I used to play in the 80's on the ZX Spectrum published by Ocean software. IIRC I think it was called Firefly, in it you flew a ship around space, attacking these bases. It was an arcade game, you fought the defenses, and once successful, you entered the base and attacked everything inside and killed them to get to the end square which would liberate it. At which point a rapidly alternating icon would appear displaying a 'Thumbs up' graphic then a 'Thumbs down' graphic. You had to stop it on the 'Thumbs up' graphic which would mean you were successful liberating the base. A 'Thumbs down' was a failure and you would be ejected from the base to start again. I stopped playing it even though it was coded well because it got on my tits eventually, because of this aspect. That was an arcade game and it pissed me off, why should a 4X strategy game with similar displayed mechanics piss me off less?

The advantage roll reminds me of that, you set up your strategy, send an overwhelming number (billions) of troops to invade a planet, only to be scuppered by a bad roll, that seems to have too much fluctuation. If it has to exist then please hide it!

I know luck has a factor to play in everything, but why do we have to see it (let alone be a part of the mechanics)? It certainly can't be that there is skilled involved, clicking a mouse button to select a random number can be performed by a lobotomised monkey. So what's the reason?

Anybody?

Regards,

Tony.

And incidently my brother knows exactly the type of game he likes, turn based strats are his favourite, another one of which is Master of Magic, and Heroes of Might and Magic. He has been playing games for over twenty years, we both have, and he is ten years my junior! This is just to let people know some background, ie. we are not wet behind the ears when it comes to playing games.

Tell your brother to get a small piece of paper and some tape out when a ground battle begins. Tape the paper over the advantage factor, then attack! If the paper is too see-through, try whiteout. However, the way it sounds, your brother would simply want to reload any ground battle he loses until he wins. No amount of hiding the advantage factor will change that compulsion.

Here's another solution... i always try to outnumber the planetary population! Winning is assured no matter how unlucky you are! The only thing to consider with luck is weather i have 2 transports left or 1, so what!

Oh by the way, planetary populations are severely limited compared to galciv1 so it is very easy to outnumber them.

It's not so much that as that we're discussing it amongst oursleves. Your question was already answered but in doing so they attached their own opinion and that's what's being dicussed. So while you did initiate the exchange you did not direct it's flow.

I don't agree. I, like you, didn't even know this was an issue with anyone. I myself could care less as the ground invasion screen does what I need it to do... tell me if I won or lost!
I don't even watch the battles as they play out (does anyone?) and am even to the point that the fluctuating odds counter means nothing to me. I press the button when I press it, no waiting and trying to see if I can time my press for the best possible odds. It is just a game after all. Now if my life depended on it...

As stated above by other players, this is a game of overall Empire strategy not ship or ground tactics.

Size is relevant. The size of your ship determines two very key things in the game itself and does reflect within each and every battle. First size determines hit points. The larger the ship, the more damage it can take to its hull before destroyed. Second, the larger the vessel, the more weaponry, defenses, item specific modules, and engines it will be able to carry. Both of which can give you a decisive edge in combat.

Some people do share your opinion here. It is just a game, and where the numbers come from does not really concern me. I like the game and these are the numbers given to me to work with.


It is, of course, an analogy, so why would you replace the barn with a ship but not the rock with an appropriate weapon type?

I feel that the most effective weapon in the game deals with range. Take planets and you win, do not, and you lose. The range of my Troop transports are represented rather well in this area. With speed and range, I can attack any key planet on a gigantic galaxy I so choose. As a side note, I was not suggesting that the game mechanics deal with speed and range during any type of combat. What I was trying to suggest is that range and speed, in my opinion, could be considered a reason for the 0 roll during an attack. Nothing more.

Heh. Maybe not in the game, but try saying that about real life. Trust me, if someone is shooting at you, I would think that you would want to relate the two. The faster you move, and the further away you are, the better chance of survival you have in most cases.


Actually, it does. Technology definitely does increase your attack and your defense. The better the weapons the higher the potential roll. Same goes for the defense. The difference determines whether you hit or if the shot is "deflected". As for the rest of what I said, you are quite correct, they do not contribute at all to the overall attack roll. However, if you read my statement carefully, I did mention that this was my opinion as to why you could have a roll of a 0 on an attack roll.

That is a huge statement, and if that were the case, then I would not be playing this game. If anyone is interested, here are how the game mechanics actually determine if your ship is hit, or "deflects" the attack. Ship Combat

In the end luck is a factor in both ground and fleet combat. Just as it is when randomly generating a new solar system to play in. Any random selection made during set up is luck. In my own mind I can contribute it to anything I want. I rolled a 0 during space combat.... was it because I had poor luck? Of course... but In the end I will say it was because the enemy ship had made drastic combat maneuvers... it is a luxury I am afforded because I have an imagination. In my opinion, when it comes to this game, you can stack the luck in your favor most of the time, through ones playing style. ( Like Evil said)

I personally do not mind pushing the mouse button to get the advantage numbers. It is my opportunity to stand on top of the troop carrier and scream.... "Destroy them all!"

**** click ****

I like that imagery! Just to clarify a little bit here... I do in fact 'attempt' to time my mouse click with the odds counter, SOMETIMES. It is usually when I am conducting mass invasions that I really don't bother weighing my odds because regardless of the outcome I usually have a few more troop transports waiting in the wings to finish the job if the first (or second or third) sortie fails.

Well, if you read my post, I said it isn't really relevant anywhere, with "except combat" implied, since that's what was being discussed. The fact is size is relevant outside combat, but marginally, and not where you mentioned. Size determines the base Range of ships too, but the variance is hardly very influential.



They don't help in creating a believable setting, that's all.



Efficient target tracking?



Hmm, it was about weapon ranges, not life support related Range.



If you're running with your back to the shooter...   



Of course, but not always though. Generally only when you finish researching a certain weapon/defense type and begin a new one.



Odd, since you've just agreed to that, except for tech.   

ToS, you are an excellent sparring partner. My hat is off to you.

It seems I may have misunderstood what you were saying, and it appears that you may have possibly missed my point as well. Therefore, allow me to break it down a bit more so that these "misinterpretations" can be correctly understood. My initial response which brought ship size and speed into question was in regards to this statement...
I said:

Mystikmind said in response:

To this I said...

As in, there were a couple of variables he had forgotten about, not that both of these play an actual role in determining the final outcome of GalCiv2 fleet combat. Technology does effect combat (in game), distance is a non- factor (in game), but they both would be variables in actual "space" combat.
Mystikmind also wrote:

I assumed Mystik meant because the dreadnought is "huge" and "slow" that the reference to the fighter would be "Tiny" and "Fast". He continued with...

I responded by saying...

I meant simply that neither speed nor the size of the target is taken into consideration when the numbers are rolled during combat. Not that they did not affect the game in other ways.
This was where you entered:

This is where the topic changed from one aspect of speed and size to another.

When I read the above statement by you, I did not read it as you were implying that it was relevant in combat... I read it as you saying it "should" be relevant. I then switched gears and tried to explain in my opinion why I felt it was relevant because you stated that "size isn't really relevant anywhere". Obviously, if read incorrectly, it would appear that I flip flopped like the great Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry, on my initial argument of size and speed. In reality they were actually two different subjects, the first being size and speed not being variables in the calculation of combat, the second being the impact of size and speed during the rest of the game.

From there, the conversation seemed to jump around a bit, most of which can be easily subject to ones opinion, communication issues, misunderstanding or misinterpretation.