Why are you putting GalCiv aside?

[Egbert]

This question is addressed to those of you who have either already stopped playing GalCiv or are heavily modding it.

I have been modding my GalCiv very heavily because it is a game with great potential but with the maintenance cost of improvements so overpriced there is very little worth building on most planets with the consequence that the game became "boring". It came down to: build a few basic improvements, build wonders and trade goods, build the fleet you can afford to support, then build starbases (full up with trade modules) and spam space with them. Keep the people happy by loading them into transports (yes, really people prefer to be crowded into transports rather than sunning themselves on a lovely planet!)

There were no "what should I build now?" choices. About the only building choice that came up was "should I build soil enrichment or a bank first?".

Oh, and destabilisation is my pet hate. I never use it because it is too overpowered and I hate it when it is used against me.

Your thoughts?

[Harry Seldon]

I do think that research is kind of a lock. There are very few deviations I ever take. It'd be nice if there were some competition between techs.

[Romanus]

I modded GalCiv mainly to increase the pace of the game. I dont want a game that I can play in an hour, but I dont want it to drag out forever either. Thats the main reason I shelved it for a while. I just didnt like the pacing of the game.

Currently, it plays the way I like it, and im enjoying my current game. I've kept the Carnoids(I think) alive for most of the game now by providing warships and money. Another race surrendered to someone else to spite my takeover attempts....that is classic gaming I must say.

I think my off and on again with GalCiv has been due to playing MOO3 and RFTS at the same time. All fun but very different.

[vee4473]

I have put it aside now and then not because I don't like it, but for the same reason all other games see down time.

There is just too much that I want to do as well as too many games to play, so some of them have to take the hit.

[vee4473]

Also, if I may say so, I think that Galciv plays so much like civ (in terms of research and "you have to build this in order to get that") that I find criticism of Gal civ's gameplay by civ lovers to be ....well, a bit hypocritical.

I do however, believe that Galciv can leave a less than appealing taste in a civ lovers mouth after a while only because Galciv seems to have a sort of "flatness" about it...

Even though Civ had the same type of repetitive research/build gameplay going on, it had a more alluring quality to it...

I'm wondering if the lack of "tile management" has anything to do with it.

I mean, in civ, you could found a city on partially poor terrain, but then improve 20 individual squares to suit your own play goals.

In Galciv, you found a planet of class X, and that's it really... it ends there for the most part...

Unless I am missing something.

I'm starting to think that maybe this is the missing link in galciv.

[DarkCloud]

vee- galciv and civ do have a lot in common. but civ has more things going for it;

1. tile management, like you said. the planets can't really harvest things outside of their initial square or be improved past their originality.

2. civ had history; we know about these nations and we know how they shoudl be played and we know these unitws- therefore it is interesting and ifnormative to play civ!

3. civ had a lighter color scheme. atmosphere adds to a game...

4. civ actually had more options; because there were roads and improvements for transport; you cuold move troops across and play out each game in a different way.

5. civ II had a scenario editor

6. civ II had a map editor

7. civ II's random maps actually vary much mroe than galcivs random maps. the maps are much more interesting in that they have different terrain about them.

8. the tech tree, though it was quite linear- actually played much better because of the distances between civs- because of terrain and moement, civs wouldn't get into conflict as fast and people could upgrade their civs more on the BUILD side than the CONQUEST/TRADE side (that is necessary for galciv's early games) *especially in small maps*

8. and some other stuff that I forgot to mention including UNIT EDITORS! But at least galciv has event editors

[Draginol]

This is really good feedback, btw.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Draginol
This is really good feedback, btw.

Please do not take this thread the wrong way. It is intended to be constructive. BTW I think I got very good value for money when I bought your game (I don't want to admit how much time I have spent playing it).

There are just a few things that become increasingly offputting in an otherwise first rate game.

1. I would love to be able to disable destabilisation.
2. The tech research path is something of a lock as Harry Seldon mentioned
3. You get a planet class X and that is about it as vee4473 mentions. The planets you are lucky enough to start near are so very important because there is not much you do to develop them and too often you are better off not developing them because of the high maintenance cost of improvements! I would like a game in which I could eventually turn some useless world into something very good (as in Master of Orion 2 I could turn a large, barren, ultrapoor world into something that really contributes to the empire)
4. The regular appearance of minors with all of my tech militates against a tech strategy because I know the other majors are going to immediately extort "my tech" the very turn that minor appears. They will continue extorting until I can get a transport over to that minor. Result is that there is not much point trying to get a significant tech lead.
5. The diplomacy emphasises military strength too much, excessive reliance on extortion and bullying.
6. Due to limited number of planetary improvements and high maintenance costs I find my planets usually can't even pay their own way! I need huge trade revenues to subsidise my planets!

Despite all of the above I still recommend this game.
(Oh, and I too would pay for a map editor, hint, hint).

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Draginol
This is really good feedback, btw.

Thanks.

and thanks for reading it. that makes all the difference- it's good to know that i'm not just typing away randomly- even if 1/2 the stuff I write is probably idiotic as you would know better than anyone...

[Harry Seldon]

5. The diplomacy emphasises military strength too much, excessive reliance on extortion and bullying.

I don't like this either. I've never been able to win with Pacifism. You have to be able to crush other civs for them to leave you alone or form treaties with you.

6. Due to limited number of planetary improvements and high maintenance costs I find my planets usually can't even pay their own way! I need huge trade revenues to subsidise my planets!

The only way around this I've found is to not build ninety percent of planetary improvements. I only build money makers at first, then wonders, then antimatter power. If I get far enough ahead I'll go back and build the fusion plant (way too expensive early for too little benefit). I find that positive cash flow means better morale and can be a better boost than most any of the social improvements.

[tetleytea]

I put down Galciv to play Rise of Nations. I really need to be done with a game in an hour. I'd like to get into Galciv and really beat it on Maso every time, but real life calls.

Plus, the expansion pack is nice (and free), but it's not really up to par with typical expansion packs. More like a good patch. Usually expansion packs have a new race, new ships, new buildings, etc..

[Draginol]

Originally posted by tetleytea
Plus, the expansion pack is nice (and free), but it's not really up to par with typical expansion packs. More like a good patch. Usually expansion packs have a new race, new ships, new buildings, etc..

What expansion pack have you played lately? Looking at the packs for HOMM IV, Warcraft III: Frozen Throne, Age of Mythology: Titans, etc. None of these add new races. Just a few new units typically and some scenarios.

The GalCiv epxansion pack is in BETA. That means not all the new stuff is in it yet. Adding ships and buildings is trivial compared to adding things like waypoints, hyperlinking, etc. We can add new sips and buildings without loading up the compiler.

The final GalCiv expansion pack will add more planetary improvements, ships, wonders, events, techs, etc. But those are a lot easier to do than the stuff we've done so far.

I can't think of any free patches in any game I've played that have added as much as we've added post-release let alone what's in the expansion pack beta already.

[Romanus]

Draginol is absolutely correct. I cant wait for the expansion pack.
Interestingly enough, this very thread caused me to start playing GalCiv again, and now im really enjoying it. In fact...I think GalCiv is a game that really needs to be played a lot to appreciate. I kept going thru these stages where I played MOO3 for a while, then GalCiv, then I got RFTS....I finally put them all aside and focused on GalCiv.

I think that in the future, the ability to play other races and maybe some variety in ship designs, or a little more control over them, would be awesome. But for now, it really is a fantastic game. I think what sold me more than anything else, this time around, was when I started paying attention to the politics.....there really is a lot going on. I find that the diplomacy is easily as good and enjoyable as Civ....better than MOO3.

I hereby retract any previously negative comments I may have made and recommend GalCiv to all.

Plus, the support for the game is over the top....best ive seen in a while.

[LDiCesare]

There is little replay value in the sense you always face opponents who force you into the same military rush strategies at the highest difficulty levels. Most techs are useless because you have to find frigates and have little time to spend somewhere else, so you'll either use these techs as trade fodder or conquer them, but they will never give you much of an advantage as everyone else will have them too. If you focus on non military techs, you'll probably get bashed.
That and the Yor are quite useless.
I'd actually fully mod the game if I could be sure I can replace tech effects for diplomacy/yellow star detection/alliance etc. and if I didn't know the ai would collapse because they research a tech tree based on predefined tech numbers (so I'd have to start my techs at a weird number). The lack of a map editor doesn't help.

[Chronus]

Vee and DarkCloud bring up a good point about tile management. For me, this aspect of the Civ series has always been a fun addition to the game. Of course, if you are the warmonger, you may see it as a form of unnecessary micromanagement.

Tile management is simply another non-military task that us "Peace-builders" can enjoy. Think of it, how many non-military units do we have in TBS games? We have Settler/Worker/Colony units, Trader/Caravan units (sadly, the caravan unit is gone in Civ 3), and Transports (which have a primarily militeristic role). Civ 1 and 2 had Diplomat/Spy units. Out of all of these non-military units, only the Settler/Worker has multiple economic tasks . . . sheer heaven for the peace-builder .

Anyway, I still enjoy GalCiv a lot, in spite of my realization that tile management will not make it into the game.