GC 2 Thoughts

[Hydro]

I purchased GC1 ages ago and quickly lost interest. Based on some of the information here I decided to give GC2 a try and am impressed. It seems to have the key elements that were lacking in other interesting but largely failed turn-based space strategy games (read that Moo3, and the sadly disapointing Space Epires V): interesting real options (as opposed to linear game play), clear development, decisions with for developing planets that really impact your empire, and useful diplomacy.

That said, I was hoping some vets out there might be able to offer some insights into strategies. Likewise, I’m interested in opinions on optimizing races. Here are some of my thoughts:

Yor ship specialists: taking advantage of their 25% miniaturization, I dump soldiering and bump military production to 50%, bump eco, and research. From the start I can get colony ships that move 5, and after a few propulsion techs can get to 9. Frankly, this is huge.

Sensor strategy: b-line for sensor 4. This gets you survey sensors, which I put on small hulls. Get this early and you’ll get more than your fair share of goodies – particularly cashing in old ship hulls, which can do wonders to fund early poor economies.

Beyond this, the only keys are to get an edge in the colony rush. On this end, I like the races that have Ion engines since they have a clear advantage getting out to find good worlds for colonies. Likewise, the Terrans are at a big disadvantage (it seems to me) since they don’t have stellar cartography. Their diplomatic edge is real useful, but other races can be easily optimized to get just as big a bonus.

So far the AI hasn’t been much of a threat so I’ll have to move up from Bright, I suppose.

Other’s thoughts or links are welcome!

Hydro

[Frogman]

I tried GC2 and wasn't impressed. I played the original MOO just to be sure I was remembering it right. MOO is just a better game. GC2 lack of tactical combat is a killer and the pathetic lack of variation in the weapons makes design of new ships a bore. Its all about the colony rush and after that its a slow plod.

Compared to 14 year old MOO, its not as good. I'm ready to toss it on ebay.

[Draginol]

I know a lot of people want tactical combat.

My thing is that it has to be done in a way that the AI uses well.

For a lot of people, myself included, tactical combat allowed players to cheese the AI in MOO. It's a huge time sink to make play as intelligently as possible.

That said, i think the main strength of GalCiv II is that you are having to build an interstellar civilization in which there are a LOT of different choices to make. The technology tree really has a lot of different directions you can take in it.

Dark Avatar expands on it big time. But at some point, tactical combat will be something we'll be looking at but only if we can devote the kind of resources to make sure the AI can handle it.

[tetley]

If there was tactical combat, that would be great. But it needs to be done well or not at all. I have seen the tactical combat in the HOMM series (really good) and in Lords of Magic (really bad), and if Stardock doesn't have the resources to put it in, I'm perfectly okay without it.

[Hydro]

Brad - thanks for visiting!

I agree with the assessment tactical combat. I've seen too many games where players can nerf the system: Moo2 where one cheapo missile DD creams a battleship might be what Brad is referring to. So I completely agree - if tactical combat is low hanging fruit then great, but I'd rather that limited resources be put in other places to keep improving the overall strategy.

Hydro

P.S. - small gripe on the images in tactical combat. Perhaps the way the ships move around can be changed a bit? Right now they seem to float around, even if they do fire nicely at each other with satisfying armor and shield responses. Having semi-vectored movement would make it seem less like toy boats in a wavy bathtub.

[ShunterAlhena]

Yeah, that's one of the two of the major gripes I have with GalCiv2. Some more directed movement would enhance the tactical combat greatly.

The other major gripe is something I frankly, cannot grasp. In both CivIII, CivIV and GalCiv2 diplomatic and technology texts are just silly. There are these great games, with a huge amount of work gone into their internal structure, graphics, UI, gameplay, and all that great immersion is ruined in the moment of trying to communicate with the other world leaders who all seem to be stuck in their 6-year-old level of speech and "humor".

Anyway, GalCiv2 is my prime space TBS right now, after the miserable disappointment SE5 is to me (with newest patch and mod); congrats for all the great effort. But PLEASE make those damn leaders take this thing SERIOUSLY... anyone remember Chairman Yang telling you that he admires your police state but cooperation with Lady Skye should be reconsidered? That was the last civlike game where diplomacy was not a childish joke...

[tetley]

I don't think you can please everybody on that one. Some people like the tongue-in-cheek humor. Personally I don't care--I just care about good game mechanics. This is coming from me, a former MUD addict who used to play loads of Zork and Hunt the Wumpus on my trusty 16k RAM Apple II.

[ShunterAlhena]

True. I'm just trying to ignore it. An option to change between serious and humorous text is naturally too much to ask for, the text is simply too sizable for that.
So nothing left but to hope that Sins of a Solar Empire will be on the serious side