A new game play example

[Draginol]

This one was a bit of a disaster but I hope people understand that given that it took 2 days I didn't want to just pretend it didn't happen.

http://www.galciv.com/examples/3/

In this game I tried to play against all "Bright" AI and set them all as good guys and played as evil. The idea was to show how you would play a conquest game.

Which is what happened except I got conquered. The good guys ganged up on the evil one. No offers for inspections either! ;)

[PriestOfDiscord]

JIHAD! :D

[Chronus]

Thanks again, Draginol!

A civ-space game that I enjoyed (try not to laugh too hard) was Birth of the Federation. A common problem that seem to emerge was that the civilization in the middle of the galaxy was at a disadvantage since he/she could be attacked from any side while the other civs, along the map border, had a guaranteed protected side. One could argue that the middle civ had better opportunities in other areas such as earlier contacts and trade. In the end, however, this didn't seem to balance out. Was this a factor you folks considered in play testing and, if not, will you consider it in future patches?

Also, I think I see a consistent pattern emerging here in all these game examples. Is it my imagination . . . or are the cute, lovable, ET-looking Torians always selected to be the good guys? ;)

[PDifolco]

I also enjoyed BOTF, what was wrong with this game ?

It had patches and works well, the Trek Universe is very well simulated, tac combat is 3D and fleet oriented, micromanagement is not that much heavier than any other 4x, graphics/UI/sounds/VO are EXCELLENT, it even has MP, don't know why it did not fare better ...

Sorry for hijacking the thread Draginol :)

As for your game it proves that Good always wins eventually, as long as it is Bright :D !

[pg]

love reading these examples. they are giving me a real positive opinion of the game. almost enough to want to go buy galciv without waiting for forum comments after people have played it, and reviews. :)

btw, this thread made me think of a possible future addition to galciv - why couldn't the map be connected at the sides, bottom and top? that way starting positions would have even less of an impact. i have no idea if it'd even be possible but it'd be a cool feature to have.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by pg
love reading these examples. they are giving me a real positive opinion of the game. almost enough to want to go buy galciv without waiting for forum comments after people have played it, and reviews. :)

btw, this thread made me think of a possible future addition to galciv - why couldn't the map be connected at the sides, bottom and top? that way starting positions would have even less of an impact. i have no idea if it'd even be possible but it'd be a cool feature to have.

That would actually help make it more of a "3D" galaxy, I think. While I understand the need for a 2D map, I will really like the rotatable galaxies. Of course, without star lanes, such a thing is almost impossible to implement.

[Sandman]

I'd like a universe scaled onto a sphere...simply because I yearn for a grand strategy game with a spherical map.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That would actually help make it more of a "3D" galaxy, I think. While I understand the need for a 2D map, I will really like the rotatable galaxies. Of course, without star lanes, such a thing is almost impossible to implement.

Moo3 has a rotatable map.
Trust me, you don't want that kind of rotatable map.

[WarpStorm]

I agree Templar. I thought that a full 3d map would be cool, but in as implemented in MOO3 it just slowed the game down for me as I kept getting my orientation screwed up. Maybe this can be implemented in a better fashion, someday. (No, Brad, I'm not suggesting it for GalCiv).

[Draginol]

We seriously considered a 3D map but we just couldn't find a way where it would be fun. GalCiv isn't like Homeworld and even there a lot of people found the 3D map objectionable.

Every feature has to justify itself. Does such a feature make the game more "fun"? In the case of a 3D map, we found it detracted from the fun.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Draginol
Every feature has to justify itself. Does such a feature make the game more "fun"? In the case of a 3D map, we found it detracted from the fun.

Thank God! Someone give this guy the licence to MoO4...

[pg]

galciv isn't connected at the sides or top/bottom atm is it? i was thinking of a map which would be like a sphere or a planet. sorta like civ maps but also connect at the top. sure it's not realistic but it'd be cool feature for gameplay as there'd be no corners/sides. 3d would be worse because it'd add lots complexity but not really any gameplay over a standard 2d map or spherical 2d map.

[vee4473]

I have posted before that the only thing that I have read that disappoints me about galciv is the lack of tactical "moo2 style" combat.

And I will say again that the only reason I find that type of combat more fun in a space TBS game, is simply that...it's a space game and seeing individual ships and shields glowing and torpedos and lasers...well...i like it.

And i've always thought that space games should use that as a strong point.


ALTHOUGH!!:

I love civ, and the civ-style combat never really lessened my "fun" for those games.
(Although I sometimes wished that when one stack engaged another, that it would switch to a tactical combat view that allowed both stacks of units to go at each other unit by unit).

Kinda like how MOO2 and Age of Wonders 2 do it. I like that.

But, that isn't game breaking for me. I am sure I will enjoy galciv, if that is the only problem I have with it.

[Boris Godunov]

I liked how Imperium Galactica II zoomed in from a 2D perspective into a 3-D tactical battle. The only problem was that it was fairly pointless to engage in tactical battles, especially once you had massive fleets of ships, since tactics didn't matter then anyway--just became I slugfest.

But it LOOKED so COOL!

[The Templar]

Originally posted by pg
galciv isn't connected at the sides or top/bottom atm is it? i was thinking of a map which would be like a sphere or a planet. sorta like civ maps but also connect at the top. sure it's not realistic but it'd be cool feature for gameplay as there'd be no corners/sides. 3d would be worse because it'd add lots complexity but not really any gameplay over a standard 2d map or spherical 2d map.

Huh, a toroidal (donut-shaped) universe? Not a bad idea. You could have toroidal planets in CtP if I recall.

[Usually Insane]

and civ3 but only in the deitor.

is it possible to make the GALCIV map a toroid?

[PriestOfDiscord]

Originally posted by The Templar
Huh, a toroidal (donut-shaped) universe? Not a bad idea. You could have toroidal planets in CtP if I recall. How bout a 3d-rotatable map of a toroid? :p

Seriously, it would be a cool option to put in the starting screen if it isn't already.