Review-in-Progress (Open Thread)

[yin26]

Well, I doubt we'll see the idea implemented anyway. I just think it was a great feature, and if lazy gamers like me who generally are allergic to mirco management want to have less optimized but faster games, so be it! At least the buildings and tiles auto upgrade. Mad props to Brad for that one!

[Sirian]

OK, so you're actually not kidding. Heh.

In GC2, I visually bunch like items when possible. This makes it easier to "read" the planet at a glance. Also, the critical part of managing planets is knowing when to do something special with them, such as leaving open slots for wonders and trade goods, or when NOT to use a planet special, as well as when to bend a whole planet around its special. If you are taking evil planet bonuses, you may also be swayed by the need to take advantage of them, putting more factories on worlds with starship production bonus, more labs on worlds with research bonus, etc.

Templates are not a good idea when that many variables are in play. For proof, just look at the AI planets. Somebody advised new players to look at what the AI does, but I would advise new players to look at what the AI does as a general example of what NOT to do! (I certainly do not build Orbital Fleet Managers on more than a handful of worlds under special circumstances, and I never build ground troop defense boosts. If you can't win in space, you've got the wrong game plan operating!)


- Sirian

[yin26]

It would be harder, for sure, but let's think about it:

build choices need to account for planet size

That's just another way of saying "number of workable tiles." That still wouldn't change the fact that I might *always* want my first builds to be labs, for example. Even if we didn't get fancy about it ("Use first 30% of available tiles for labs, etc."), I'd still be happy with a "dumb" template that would fit for most of my planets, at least for many turns to come, after which time I'd micro.

planet specials

"When possible, place build on appropriate special bonus tile first."

and the current state/trend of your spending vs economy

That's always a concern best left to micro anyway. A template just serves its rudimentary purpose (well, actually)

plus your need for more startship building worlds, or research centers, or even a place to go for a few wonders.

Again, the micromanagers should still fare better than blind adherents to templates, but I'd be willing to be less optimal in my games if I lost some micro baggage (micro I could always devle back in to as needed).

Now, is this the biggest fish for Brad to fry? No. He has a host of other AI and UI issues that are more important. But I think this template idea could still work well and would make many people pretty happy.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by yin26

I had forgotten the feature. Bring it back!

Of course you know that isn't possible in the new environment, because build choices need to account for planet size, planet specials, and the current state/trend of your spending vs economy, plus your need for more startship building worlds, or research centers, or even a place to go for a few wonders.




- Sirian

[yin26]

Originally posted by Sirian
You could pull up a canned list of items, a governor list that you could tailor, so that planets always built this then that. The marginal stuff you could leave under manual control.

I had forgotten the feature. Bring it back!

[yin26]

Game update:

One measure I have for a game is how well I get punished for cocky play. I was happy, when not paying attention to diplomacy and careful planning of attacks, that I got triple teamed. This had me *really* on the ropes. I was a bit disappointed, though, that each civ seemed to count only its own situation relative to me instead of me relative to all comers. That is, the AIs should see all 3 civs attacking me as helping each others cause (a feeding frenzy), but because I was ahead of one civ in tech, etc., I bought peace. The Yor then quit the war, I guess because they were in trouble back home (fair enough), and the Drengin were bought off with some tech.

Of course, I am crippled. I lost 4 planets (more cities than I think I've lost in Civ once I got good at playing it, though I'm not very good at GalCiv yet, so keep that in mind). I'm curious to see if I can gather myself and take those planets back. Nevertheless, it's great that the AI even got me this bad.

[Solver]

Judging by the above post, my first impression of GalCiv2: why can't they call the civs something I can remember?

[Gufnork]

In my opinion GC2 does have blocs, quite defined such at that. Maybe it's the way I play, but in every single game these two blocs have formed:

Dratha
Altarians
Torians
Terrans
Thalans

Drengin
Yor
Arceans
Korx
Iconians

Every game. They're not all at war with each other at once, but every time I play good I'm just waiting for Drengin or Yor to declare on me (usually both at the same time. A few turns after the opportunistic Korx declare. Arceans and Iconians vary when they declare, but I know they will. I've never seen Arceans or Iconians go good and never seen Terrans or Thalans go bad.

[Sirian]

There is one other thing that GC1 has lost.

There was an "only right choice" for the order in which to build the planetary improvements. Bad, right? No, not in this case. You could pull up a canned list of items, a governor list that you could tailor, so that planets always built this then that. The marginal stuff you could leave under manual control.

It was Fire and Forget! I'd apply the List to all my planets and then never touch them again. This left zero of my attention on micromanaging the planets. I actually used to play with Autoturn on, moving from one turn to the next in rapid fire fashion. I'd play whole games in a day or so, in many cases.

In GC2, now the planets have different paths, opening up more gameplay but also requiring players to manage the planets more. Strangely, I'm finding that to be a pain, most especially with wasted overflows.


The lesson here is that even fun stuff needs a glossy slick interface and help with automation tools. Stuff that has literally only one right answer can be intelligently automated, if the player is allowed to set the order of operations.

Anyway, GC2 has lost some of the simplicity that held GC1 together. With this glue gone, something else has to rise to take its place.


- Sirian

[Solver]

I was half-joking about your slowness . BTW, Yin, yeah, don't forget that Sirian is one hardcore man, he's also a record-holder in those coin game automats... and a definite gaming professional. Oh, and a Half-Life ass-kicker.

If GC2 doesn't have blocs, though, it's a shame. Trading/diplomatic blocs is one of the most important achievements of Civ4, of that I'm convinced.

[Sirian]

Actually I was the first TBS game ladder champion on the web, racking up 51-0 before my first loss. The game was Deadlock, fall 1996, during my first "Descent burnout" phase. MOO2 came out for Christmas and all of us on Kali who were Deadlock players had HIGH hopes for it. The entire ladder elite quit Deadlock en masse and moved to MOO2, which was a PITA to get working and had really awful netcode, plus the whole nightmare of unbalanced races and racial picks.

I've just kind of been there and done that with TBS MP play. (Civ3 MP players who have 1000+ logged games boggle my mind.) Also, Deadlock was a simpler game, chesslike in its strategy and precision. I really liked its rhythms and the fact that there was so little to have to micromanage. You didn't have to formulize your play to get through a game.

I'm only a journeyman RTS player because I dislike repetition and canned gameplay. You have to can your gameplay to make good decisions one after the next in rapid fashion for an hour on end, with no pausing.


The real reason why I'm slow at Civ is that my training is now to pay attention to all the details instead of glossing over them. I find I can't just turn that off like a switch. I'm more interested at this point in being an efficient game designer than in being an efficient game player. So I spend a lot of energy smelling all the flowers and cataloguing various elements in my mind.


As for GalCiv good and evil, the Good is stronger than yin is crediting. In fact, in GalCiv1, the smartest way to play on high difficulty was to identify the biggest immediate military threat and suck up to them forthwith by leaning your alignment to match theirs. Then you'd survive to the middle game and probably win.

In GC1, there were two clear factions. Always the Torians and Altarians were buddy-buddy and would form a tight alliance. You could join them, or not. The Drengin and Yor would be more opportunistic. Even if you were Evil they would prey on you if you were weak, and so the "advantages" of getting planetary and event bonuses were negated by the less-cohesive nature of the Evil Bloc. There were also the Arceans, neutral, who would end up leaning one way or the other in the end, and so offered a wildcard. If they leaned the same way as the Human, it would be four on two and USUALLY that was pretty easy. Occasionally it was not. If they leaned the other way, it would be three on three and on high difficulty, Human was handicapped so his triumvirate would always be the weaker one and it was GAME ON.

By far the biggest thing lost in GalCiv2 is diplomatic cohesiveness. The AIs now cut you more slack on starting wars (they are not as hardcoded to hate you). This is good in reducing the "only right choice" of HAVING to suck up, to buy good relations at whatever the price because you HAD TO survive that early vulnerable phase to compete in the game. You pretty much had to avoid war with your closest neighbor at all costs, any costs, or you lost. Period. BUT once past that phase, there were two strong (and strongly motivated) blocs and the situations were dynamic, simple and clear, and often compelling. That was GC1. In GC2, the wars between good and evil are now between one pair of civs, or two pairs of civs, or two vs two, with the majority of the neutral civs sitting back doing nothing.

Adding more civs has only dilluted what was the finest military bloc system ever provided in the genre. Gone is the compelling politics of HAVING to choose your bloc wisely. Gone is the tension of having to try to reverse course if your bloc gets its butt kicked. Gone is having to fight a REAL war vs a (usually) distant rival power, with your allies giving you ships to help you fight. Now it is much more like Civ3, with almost no diplomatic cohesion to speak of. Good civs will still align with you if you are Good, but there are only two of them. (That's still half the galaxy if you play with only the original six GC1 races, but it's less than a third of the galaxy with the full compliment of GC2 races.)

The diplomatics in GC2 have left something important behind: real blocs. Most of the AIs now are independent agents. Nobody, and I mean NO BODY, came to any of my targets' aid in my max difficulty game of GC2. I simply picked them off one at a time in isolation. It was like Civ3 on its worst day. Brad really needs to do SOMEthing to bring back ethical and diplomatic tensions and cohesion. It is the clear lack of meaningful alliances among the AIs and between player and AIs that is most hurting the end game. Divided they fall.


- Sirian

[Solver]

I've always said that MP isn't about winning but about having fun - and I've said that even in games that are (IMO) more competitive by nature than Civ4. Like AoE2. Yes, I'm a veteran of it.

I don't play Civ4 MP vs. random people in the lobby. For me, playing MP is partially a social occasion - I play people I know, like others from the Civ4 test crew or forumers. So I'd also be honored to play you, just to enjoy a fun game for a couple of hours, no matter who wins.

If we also get Sirian in, we could have one long chat while he moves his Workers .

[yin26]

Well, I'd be honored to play you guys. I'd want to brush up on my Civ4 skills, though, as I haven't loaded a game in about a month.

[Solver]

You know, having Sirian, you and me in a MP game probably would be quite a show. The three of us are SP gamers, both you and I have even said some things about MP at one point or another... and Sirian plays at a pace that is called the "Sirian speed". Would be good fun .

[yin26]

Indeed. The religion comparison is apt. As for a Civ game...

"Sire, Solver sent up compliments!"

"He did? I smell a trap."

"But he has always been so honest and steady."

"Have you forgotten it's because of him I ate a game box?"

"You're right! So what should we say?"

"Contact Sirian and tell him he will be "Yin" for a few hours against Solver."

"Dastardly!"

"Then send him a copy of GalCiv2 to ease his pain."

"And then have Sirian beat him again in an MP game of GalCiv2? Brilliant!"

"No, no MP in GalCiv2...but Sirian's 'Yin Metaverse' account is already warming up."

"That's why you're the boss!"