Why are you putting GalCiv aside?

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Hywel Dda
It's interesting to see how many posters have retreated back to other games - no particular criticism of GalCiv - but they'd rather play MooN/CivN/SmaX/HoI/etc...
Myself I played a few times - then fell back on Civ II
Perhaps the problem is that GalCiv offers a lot - but then somehow fails to deliver.

On the contrary. It delivers everything it offers. I think the problem is that many find it too hard. People want to take on GalCiv the same way they take on most strategy games, but they find that that is just not possible. They need to rethink, and then it is easier to revert back to SMAC, MOO or whatever.

Asmodean

[Harry Seldon]

My biggest problem was the lack of variety in gameplay. If you truly want to be successful you pretty much choose the same techs in around the same order each time through. Maybe I'm not good enough to play any other way but many times when I deviate from the gun-toting war path I end up getting crushed.

[Asmodean]

Okay....I understand what you mean, HS, but I my mind, the really interesting choices come later in the game, when you really start interacting with the other civs.

Asmodean

[Harry Seldon]

That's true. I still feel boxed in unless I'm playing the linear strategy, though. It's the total opposite of Moo3 in my opinion. The techs are TOO important. I like to be able to choose techs that are more in line with what I need at the moment but I feel if I don't grab the early money building techs then shoot straight for dreadnaughts then I'm too far behind to catch up.

[Asmodean]

Well...a strategy of taking over your enemies by culture starbases is also viable. It allows time for massive empire building, but often involves trading off a few starsystems.

Asmodean

[Harry Seldon]

I've usually end up focusing on culture because it's the most effective way to take star systems, IMHO, but without an impressive military I'm savagely beaten back. I usually play small galaxies, though, because my PC was so wimpy. I have a new one that's strong enough to play large galaxies so it will probably change the gameplay a bit.

[Asmodean]

Yeah, but if you want to try winning without an impressive military, you can usually trade off a few star systems. This will often buy you peace long enough to get your starbases going. Then when your adversary calls your bluff, you'll need only enough fighting force to deal with local threat, if you've played your cards right.

Asmodean

[Harry Seldon]

That will work on the larger maps but on smaller ones I'm lucky to have four or five systems and each is vital to the cause. Plus, if I'm attacked too early my starbases are an easy target unless I can back them up militarily. Losing a starbase is usually a devastating event in my games.

We're kind of threadjacking this. Should we open a new one in strategy?

[LDiCesare]

I agree about the lack of diversity in gameplay. The fact that it is hard to mod things doesn't help (you have to change all the files by hand and then put them back in place instead of selecting a scenario folder from the game menu).

About the game being too hard, it may be true for some, but as far as I concerned, I play the games when they are a challenge, so no game can be too hard for me (unless I can't even get started).

[Draginol]

What would you like to see added/changed to create more diversity?

[Harry Seldon]

I have the most trouble avoiding military techs. I've always felt that if I didn't go straight for dreadnaughts that I was done for, even if I wanted to try a pacifist game. I also have a hell of a time bribing other civs into doing anything. Sometimes it seems the only techs they value are the military ones and money isn't always a good trade item.

Some of this may be due to gameplay and strategy. One of the things I don't think would be affected by this is the value of technology as a whole. It seems that there are some techs that you just have to have, like dreadnaughts. I can't really think of any suggestions to remedy this, though. God forbid if tech turned to the worthless crap it was in MOO3.

I haven't played GalCiv since I got my new 2.2 GHz machine so I've never played larger than a small galaxy. Maybe I won't feel this way if I have more room to manuever.

[LDiCesare]

What would you like to see added/changed to create more diversity?

In my opinion diversity is best achieved bu mods and scenarios. It's also about tech path you choose.
I want a galaxy where exploration/expansion is fast and then a game where it is slow (can be done simply by different range/speed of colony ships - but the ai doesn't know how to use a constructor in order to extend its range so it can settle a planet). This could be a setting.
I want a game where the only military techs you have are those that give +10 military (attack or def...) and very few new ships.
I want to be able to choose between an attack ship line (fast, ranged) and a defense ship line (negative range and speed so they can't move) which may provide a bonus to starbase defense. Or maybe use starbases to effectively freeze enemy ships by reducing their speed to 0 (the current -1 speed starbase module is quite pitiful since you'd need 4 or 5 starbases in a sector before it starts getting interesting).
I want a game where it is possible to make a starting gambit so if you go with one tech path you'll have no military but a huge production/science base, so, if you survive that stage, you can start building a military much stronger than that of the opponents.
I want the occasional event that changes the game, like fundies do, but more of this kind. For instance: A new alien race from another galaxy with totally weird tech arrives and seizes several star systems by surprise, and here you go with a powerful alien major race that can't be traded with or talked to, but is powerful enough that it might be a good idea that all majors team against it until they get rid of it, before you can resume fighting one another. Maybe a special kind of ship would be appropriate to fight this menace (a weapon useless on other races but efficient against these).

And mods that are really mods, that is thye change the core files instead of adding stuff.

[Cookie Monster]

Just thought I'd share.........


Still playing HOI. I think this is the longest I've stuck with playing one game. Patch 1.05c is out and the game keeps getting better.

I wish I had the time but like I said above, GalCiv and RoN are still on my hard drive just waiting for me to pick up again.

[Hydro]

The one part of the game that annoys me the most is the frantic rush for planets in the early game. Literally, if you pause to think you are stewed. While it doesn't completely control the game, if you don't get your share you are at a significant disadvantage (and the AI knows where all the 15+ planets are).

The only why I've found to complete is to set my military to 100% and mass produce colony ships, then send them out wily nilly and hope (new planets produce a scout first). Even them I seem to only get parity.

I don't know what could fix this, or even if others think its broken. I do know it has diminished my interest in the game since it makes it very 'linear' to me.

[Madine]

I thought StarDock did an excellent job of supporting their game. I really think that was a deciding factor in establishing and maintaining their playerbase.

I haven't played in a few months, so my analysis could be a little rusty. This also means that some stuff I listed may have been fixed/addressed already.

What would you like to see added/changed to create more diversity?

More diverse ships. I remember there being ships, and then as you progressed you would get better ships.

What about fast and weak ships for going after construtors/traders, offensive ships, defensive ships, scout ships (I think there was a sentry or something, but it was so slow that it was mostly practical for defensive purposes only).

Another problem with lack of diversity is the planets. There's a number. High number is good; low number is bad. Maybe some planets could get inherent bonuses/penalties similar to what random events give.

From a the perspective of gaining gameplay advantages, there didn't seem to be much diversity in morality. From what I understood, the main advantage to being good was good relations with other good races, and that didn't seem to play out. That could be a diplomacy system issue and not a morality system issue. There didn't seem to be any advantages to being neutral. Good and evil both had unique techs, but neither set seemed to be significantly better than the other. Evil was considered the "best" choice because it gave you economic/sociological bonuses.

In fairness being good/evil and having the game change based on that is something that afaik is unique in the 4x genre. So along with my criticism I also feel compelled to acknowledge that this is a cool and innovative feature, even if the morality choices aren't balanced.