How this game compares to MOO III? Is it better or worse or same?

[Barbazoul]

Gufnork,

There wont be a "human level" competitive AI in any TBS game for years and years !
You WILL always eventually win against an AI if you have the same conditions of play. You WILL always beat the Civ 4 noble difficulty.
You WILL always beat the "Intelligent" setting of the galciv 2 AI.

Comparing the highest dificulty levels of those two games makes no sense. It's just about how many bonuses you give to the AI. If what youre looking for is difficulty, then give 500% economic bonuses to the "suicidal" AIs, instead of the usual 200%...
When you say that the only game you didnt beat at the highest difficulty is Civ 4, it is not a valid point : you can't beat it because the AI is better, but surely because it gets more bonuses than the galciv 2 highest difficulty AI. Highest difficulty levels dont depend on the AI anymore.

You should look for human competition on the internet for the type of challenge you seem to seek, and that's an option Civ 4 does offer, while galciv 2 does not.
But basing your review on the AI being not challenging enough isn't fair.

And don't forget that patches are here, in a way, to make the AI more "human like" : to learn and learn more strategies, more tactics, from the humans that code it. It is learning that gives us this enormous advantage over the non learning AI.


PS : i only reacted to a small part of your post. You are right on the obscure economic sliders, and nobody can blame you for not liking certain choices. Tastes and colours...

[Gufnork]

It's not the lack of bonuses that I don't like, it's the way the competition feels. Either the AI overwhelms me with massive military presence or it's an easy victory for me. It's never a struggle. In Civ 4 I feel like I'm facing opponents that I wonder what they will do next, in GalCiv 2 they're merely obstacles who act the same every time. I'm not sure it's just the AI either, though. I believe atleast part of it is the gameplay.

[opaque]

It's funny that you say that because correct me if I'm wrong but Civ IV uses the same AI for each civ and each difficulty level but just with different bonuses/leaders/unique units etc. Whereas GalCiv II (according to a developer post I read) has completely different code and algorithms for each civ and also for each difficulty level.

From the posts of yours that I've read it seems you decided you wouldn't like it before you even played it.

[Gufnork]

Does it really matter whether I like the game or not? I'm trying to explain what I dislike about the game and you can agree or disagree as you wish. If you feel that the AI's feel alive and has personality, then you may ignore me. True, they are slightly different. The Drengin can't colonize and thus get's their arse handed to them on larger maps. The Korx and the Terrans spam starbases. Korx are more easily bought. The Yor tends to always have the most powerful military. They all share the same weaknesses however and are thus beaten the same way. The AI in Civ 4 varies it's strategy from game to game. I never know what to expect. Since every race seems to play the same way in every game in GalCiv 2, I know what to expect. I know what will happen. I know how to win, even before the game starts.

But trust me, I really, really, really wanted to love this game. I thought I would after reading up about it. I'm afraid I was disappointed. I think part of the problem is that I expected to like it before I even played it.

[opaque]

No it doesn't matter, I'm just surprised to hear that you think Civ IV's AI is so much better than GalCiv II's when it seems like so much more effort was put in to make GalCiv II's AI a real challenge.

I can't pass any sort of judgement yet really as I haven't even completed my first game yet. I'm not a hardcore gamer and as such I have started on the lower difficulty levels and don't have hours of time to spend on it.

I'm just going by what I've read about the two games.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by Barbazoul
Gufnork,

When you say that the only game you didnt beat at the highest difficulty is Civ 4, it is not a valid point : you can't beat it because the AI is better, but surely because it gets more bonuses than the galciv 2 highest difficulty AI.

The Civ4 Deity bonuses are at 167%. (Actually, they are 40% discounts, but comparing 60% to 100% is 3 to 5. That's a 5/3 ratio, which equates to 167%).

With less tech trading in Civ4, though, it's not possible for the player to use brokering to get freebies and thereby keep up. There are also economic limits on your empire size in the early game, which the AIs do not suffer to the same extent. That's a really nasty combination that is intended to make the highest level one of true suffering. However, the AIs pay the same cost as player for World Wonders and have only about a 30% bonus to research, and they get no bonuses in combat, so it is possible to get in on the wonder race or the military action if you do manage to reach a particular tech in time. They pay a lot less in maintenance costs, though, so the net result is rather tough going. There aren't many shortcuts available.

GalCiv favors attackers, not defenders, so being behind in tech is really nasty. There is no defense vs a higher tech enemy: no territory defense bonuses, no planetary defense bonuses. Thus GalCiv is even more about the tech race than any other entry in the genre.

Since you can stay in the GalCiv tech race just by being a good trader, those who can do that can stay in most GalCiv games even against the 200% AI.


- Sirian

[Gufnork]

I should also mention that I get beat half the times on the second highest (unless I play Rome whom I always win with) and I'm challenged on the difficulty below. This is not true for GalCiv 2, the only challenge is on Masochistic and above on small maps when the AI always gang up on me and I have no minor races to trade techs with.

[Destroyer]

I have a problem with presentation on Galciv 2.

The nearest game to it I think I have played is Birth of the Federation. BOTF seemed more functional.

Is there a way to bring up ships paths to destination and etas?

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Destroyer

Is there a way to bring up ships paths to destination and etas?

Not that I know of. Another shortcoming in an otherwise fine game.

[Kc7mxo]

there's no list of etas, but you can turn on the autopilot option on the mini-map and it'll show their courses as little lines on the map.

very handy for finding that fleet you sent to attack the terrans and forgot about.

[mike2h]

loved moo2. moo3 was full of potential that was never realised & was completely abandoned by it atari/inrogrammes early on & quicksilver not to long after. imo there is no comparison between these 2 games - gal civ2 wins hands down.

[Hokiemon]

MoO3 was an abomination; haven't tried GC2 yet, but it would be hard to be worst than MoO3! Several reviews have compared GC2 favorability with MoO2 which (IMO) was a very good game. I played MoO2 almost as much as I played Civ II. As soon as I complete all these #@*!% taxes forms and get them sent off to Uncle Sam, I'm going to get GC2 and give it a try!

[Aquiantus]

Ok here is what a 4x is all about
Exploration
Expansion
Exploitation of resources
Extermination

Ok GalCiv2 allows you to Explore the Galaxy and find little goodies anomalies similar to Civilization finding goodie huts. You also find debris, and blackholes and find star systems that are suitable for your expansion.

You build your own fleet, you can design your own ships and send them out to explore and expand. Once you have expanded, you can exploit the resources on those alien worlds however you like. You want alot of research go for it, want alot of Manufacturing go for it. There are tiles that you set your buildings on, some of them have bonuses, so one tile might have a 100% bonus to Manufacturing, which would double a Factories ability.

In Civ4 you exploit the land around you building your cities where you get the rare resources ect ect. Its a similar concept and both games do this well.

In Moo3 Exploration was the least fun of these three games, the Expansion was the least fun because Moo3 was built around Macroing by telling the Governors what to do. That took all the Micro fun out of whatever was left to Micro your colony.

So far
Civ3 and GalCiv2 have passed the first three 4x base values. Moo3 has not.

Last

GalCiv2 allows you to conquer our opponents through extermination. This part is the most fun, due to designing your own fleet in your own image, heck name your best ship after yourself. You deserve it. You build your fleet, send them out to do war, watch the battles unfold. Now it misses a Tactical battle, but you will see 3D your ships flying around enemy ships battling it out, but you cant control them. You just have to hope you built the right ship for the right job. Its very similar to Civ4 right now, you send in units to the next square to attack, and they do the business and you watch. So both are on the same level when it comes to the units battling, only GalCiv2 has whole Fleets doing the business, with different designed ships, in a 3D mode fighting it out. So I would put GalCiv2 ahead in that department.

As mentioned earlier the AI in Moo3 was not impressive and was easily beaten, so Extermination was neither challenging in that game. Watching the battles from tiny ships wasn't very fun either.

And finally Civ4 probably does the WORST job on Extermination. Lets look at the facts, it takes the Battle of Thermopolyee every time you try to conquer another city in Civilization4. Not only does it feel like the Battle of Iwo Jima but you also go bankrupt quickly from trying to support your military.

Imagine supporting the Crusade today because it TOOK them a 1000 years to get to the middle-east only to discover they had Guns now and your Crusaders have no hope of winning. NOW you know how it feels to play Civ4.

Realistically I think Civilization games should all be in Era's, and those Era's each have their own timetable, you aren't allowed to leave that time until you learn the techs, but once you learned the techs your time-tables would update from 5000-3000 BC to 2000-0 BC and you would continue on after this new age or whatever.

Realistically they dont GIVE you enough time in any age but the LAST one to actually go head to head with units of that age. So while you may enjoy steamrolling Axemen with your Tanks, its gets fairly boring for me real fast.

Not to mention the slowdown you will get with Civ4, I'm playing Galactic Civilizations 2 on the hugest galaxy and there isn't this lag affect I got on Civ4. I could move the mouse in a Civ4 huge game, and it would take 4000-1000 BC before it moved. So I would have to play on Normal or smaller maps, but in GalCiv2 I'm able to play on the largest maps and behold no lag. And if it does lag at all I can garuntee it will only take a week and not a few thousand years lol.

But, I have to had it to Sid, he did make a great game, its fun to play, but I have issues with the Extermination part of his 4x aswell as the lag affect on larger maps.

Multiplayer was great, until I built a huge army of Spearmen, Axeman, Catapults, and put myself down to negative income. I moved this Turtle of an army similar to the size of the Persian force going to conquer Greece, on their way they would stop off and take out Rome whom I hoped had no Legions yet since it was still early in the game. All the world shuttered by this massive spectacle of logistics from such a HUGE force (over 60 units) as it advanced on Rome only to find a Battle of Thermopolyee there with their Legions whom somehow appeared a few thousand years earlier than expected. No problem the army took down 8 legions, losing less than a quarter. On to the next city 10 squares away. Once they arrive, boom boom boom. What the heck was that noise, a chit thats a Rifleman who took down the massive Persian army. I just dont recall History like that Sid, I'm sorry but your Extermination gets a Big Fat F in my book.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by Aquiantus
Ok here is what a 4x is all about
Exploration
Expansion
Exploitation of resources
Extermination

I can't be the only person in the world who despises the "4x" analogy. Some clever reviewer devised this summation of the gameplay and it has stuck like glue to the genre.

It's nothing more than a box, and a small one at that. Any developer who gets stuck thinking inside that box is going to get what he deserves.


- Sirian

[Aquiantus]

4x isn't an Analogy, I suggest you go back to school and learn what an Analogy is. 4x is a Description not an Analogy of what these TBS games are all about. If you dont like the Description of these types of TBS games, I suggest you take your arguements up with an expert. Try the Gamespot reviewers, I'm sure you will find a few there who would love to school you on thinking inside the box of a 4x game and how you can get their next Editor's Choice
award.