Tweet
This question is addressed to those of you who have put GalCiv aside or will soon be "played out" on this game. What do you see as the big issues with the re-playability of this game?
(I think, in GalCiv 1 the biggest weakness was planet management being dull but that was completely fixed with the introduction of planetary tiles in GalCiv 2).
I think the biggest weaknesses are diplomacy and the minors. The diplomacy is very much like Civ2 ie about 20 years behind current standard expected in a computer game.
Alliances
You may be attacked and your ally might not join in. It might not even be possible to bribe your ally to join in. If your ally also happens to be allied with your enemy you may be attacked by your ally.
Even worse, your ally is attacked and you are asked to help. Later your ally makes peace and in due course allies with your enemy and attacks you. So much for helping your ally.
This problem with alliances is intertwined with "minor civs". If you ally with a minor civ you have no way of stopping them allying with other majors. You have no way of predicting which side they will join if you get into a war with the other major.
I would like either:
1. the possibility of an exclusive alliance, perhaps taking a minor as a vassal as in Civ4
2. if you join an alliance, the whole alliance makes peace togeter as in Victoria.
Diplomatic relations
When trading with another civ, it doesn't seem to make much difference how good or bad relations are. The price is much the same.
Also, the AI has no concept of co-operation. You can give much to a civ to help it but this has no effect on trading. You will pay the same price for Tech X whether you have given them 20 techs or just been at war. (eg. In Civ4 if relations have been good enough for long enough you can beg a tech if you can't pay, just long as you have been very nice to the other civ for a long time).
Minors
Long trade routes pay more so the minors like to trade with those who are far away. This means that if you have a minor in your territory it will be unlikely to trade with you because the trade route is too short. The trade with distant civilisations will improve relations until eventually the minor becomes allied with some other major. Umh, if left alone another major will have an ally located in my territory, perhaps in my undefended heartland. Leaving the minor alone in the midst of my territory may mean I will eventually have to defend all of my planets. Better to kill the minor now to prevent possible future problems.
If the minor will not establish trade routes with me it is useless but it does have a very nice planet. Why not invade this useless occupier of prime real estate and take his beautiful planet for myself.
The problem here is that the minor AI has no "survival instinct". (It should have the goal of still being alive when a major gets a victory). It should establish trade routes with its neighbours so the neighbour has some reason not to kill it. I would not want to kill a minor who gave me all of his trade routes. I would instead establish my own trade routes with him and keep him as my trade partner deep in my own territory where he is safe (unless he would eventually ally with another major).
Once again, I would like to be able to take minors as vassals. The can not trade with anyone else. They are part of my empire but they manage their own worlds, fleets, research and finance. They are taken out of the diplomatic matrix (they can't sell tech or establish trade with anyone except me.
The diplomacy and the minors are not much of a problem if you intend to wipe everyone out. They are a problem if you wish to have a relatively peaceful economic/research game.
I find GalCiv an excellent game with immense replayability but I do find the diplomacy and the behaviour of the minors a little frustrating.
(I think, in GalCiv 1 the biggest weakness was planet management being dull but that was completely fixed with the introduction of planetary tiles in GalCiv 2).
I think the biggest weaknesses are diplomacy and the minors. The diplomacy is very much like Civ2 ie about 20 years behind current standard expected in a computer game.
Alliances
You may be attacked and your ally might not join in. It might not even be possible to bribe your ally to join in. If your ally also happens to be allied with your enemy you may be attacked by your ally.
Even worse, your ally is attacked and you are asked to help. Later your ally makes peace and in due course allies with your enemy and attacks you. So much for helping your ally.
This problem with alliances is intertwined with "minor civs". If you ally with a minor civ you have no way of stopping them allying with other majors. You have no way of predicting which side they will join if you get into a war with the other major.
I would like either:
1. the possibility of an exclusive alliance, perhaps taking a minor as a vassal as in Civ4
2. if you join an alliance, the whole alliance makes peace togeter as in Victoria.
Diplomatic relations
When trading with another civ, it doesn't seem to make much difference how good or bad relations are. The price is much the same.
Also, the AI has no concept of co-operation. You can give much to a civ to help it but this has no effect on trading. You will pay the same price for Tech X whether you have given them 20 techs or just been at war. (eg. In Civ4 if relations have been good enough for long enough you can beg a tech if you can't pay, just long as you have been very nice to the other civ for a long time).
Minors
Long trade routes pay more so the minors like to trade with those who are far away. This means that if you have a minor in your territory it will be unlikely to trade with you because the trade route is too short. The trade with distant civilisations will improve relations until eventually the minor becomes allied with some other major. Umh, if left alone another major will have an ally located in my territory, perhaps in my undefended heartland. Leaving the minor alone in the midst of my territory may mean I will eventually have to defend all of my planets. Better to kill the minor now to prevent possible future problems.
If the minor will not establish trade routes with me it is useless but it does have a very nice planet. Why not invade this useless occupier of prime real estate and take his beautiful planet for myself.
The problem here is that the minor AI has no "survival instinct". (It should have the goal of still being alive when a major gets a victory). It should establish trade routes with its neighbours so the neighbour has some reason not to kill it. I would not want to kill a minor who gave me all of his trade routes. I would instead establish my own trade routes with him and keep him as my trade partner deep in my own territory where he is safe (unless he would eventually ally with another major).
Once again, I would like to be able to take minors as vassals. The can not trade with anyone else. They are part of my empire but they manage their own worlds, fleets, research and finance. They are taken out of the diplomatic matrix (they can't sell tech or establish trade with anyone except me.
The diplomacy and the minors are not much of a problem if you intend to wipe everyone out. They are a problem if you wish to have a relatively peaceful economic/research game.
I find GalCiv an excellent game with immense replayability but I do find the diplomacy and the behaviour of the minors a little frustrating.
But I admit, the game gets tiresome and repetitive fast.
I was debating attempting to capture a couple of planets from their main territory and then give them back as part of the negotiation, but it's a lot of work just to end the war. Any reasonably intelligent player would see that they just lost a third of their empire and perhaps they should consider making peace while they still have an empire to rule over 
L...I still enjoy the scifi aspect of the game. I have been tweaking my custom ship skills, which I love about GC2, though I wish they would give you more frames to work with.
Comment