A comparison

[FieldDoc]

Hi,
I'm not trying to start one of those crappy 'versus' threads but I would like to know if anyone has played space empires IV? I have and love this game and I wonder if its worth getting galciv as well.
Opinions?

[Lemmy]

So many things are done differently in GalCiv then in SE4, that it's hard to tell if a SE4 player would like GalCiv.
What GalCiv offers over SE4 is an improved singleplayer experience. The diplomacy and AI are superb, which is where SE4 lacked. And the good AI basically effects everything else, not just diplomacy. They AI seems to build good, making them strong opponents also on the long term, not just in the beginning like in most games. The military AI also does a good job at finding your weak spots and trying to take those out.
And the events and space monster can totally change the course off a game, which i like.

[PDifolco]

In a nutshell I'd say that GalCiv has a very quicker pace, things play and change much quicklier. Much less micromanagement than SE4 also. Better AI and more interesting diplomacy, "ethics" choice and important story/random events..
It's also less "dry" and has better graphics/animations, cool little cutscenes and VERY good music !

On the minus side there is no multiplayer (SE4 PBW was cool !), no ship design and tac combat nor detailed ground combat (but that's a reason for the increased pace !), and only a given set of 6 races.
You could also find that management is "too simple" as planets only have one "quality"parameter, and spendings are not adjustable per system.
Overall I find GC more enjoyable than SE4 for the moment

[FieldDoc]

One thing I like most about SEIV is the enormity of the tech tree. How big is the one in galciv?

[unic]

Go to http://galciv.bsd.st/zai_h/z070techtree.gif (warning, big .gif file) and have a look for yourself

(Or, otherwise, from a quick look at Javascout's database site, I estimate around 150-170 techs, but that's a quick estimate, not a count - does anybody know the exact count?)

/unic

[yin26]

After some 40 hours of play, I haven't begun to scratch the surface of the tech tree! You tend to go to techs that match your strategy, leaving many great techs totally fresh and new when you go on a new plan. The best thing about the techs, too, is I've hardly encountered a useless one (space cartography aside).

I also played SE4, and the greatest thing there is all the modding that took place. I imagine we'll see that with GalCiv as well, but (as has been said) the pacing is much better, the potential to stay engaged the entire game is also there.

You can't go wrong, in my view.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Lemmy
So many things are done differently in GalCiv then in SE4, that it's hard to tell if a SE4 player would like GalCiv.

This pretty much says it all. I love both games so I'll make some comments.

GalCiv has a better AI. I found that after turn 100 in SE4, the game ceases to be challenging usually (granted, not using the race/atmospere exploit mitigates this problem). GalCiv also has better diplomacy.

If you love the micromanagement aspects of SE4 (I don't after I have enough systems) or you love ship design and tactical combat (I think SE3/4 did this exceptionally well), then be wary of GalCiv. GalCiv is much more like Civ3 in this respect. Ships are not designed, and combat is purely strategic.

So I guess it depends what you liked about SE4.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Actually, space cartography does have use in one particular scenario:

Gigantic map, loose star clusters or no clusters, if you head STRAIGHT for that tech and give yourself speed and pop growth as your two major bonus advantages (so that your colonies will have sufficient people and your colony ships will get there quickly), can allow S. Cartography to be very powerful in getting you to lots of the right kinds of planets first.... particularly if you send a scout or two way ahead of your colony ships to check out the surroundings.

Caveat: In all honesty, I havent' done this yet, but I've done variations on parts of that strategy which lead me to believe it would be highly successful. In fact, I plan on trying it in my next game.

[yin26]

Ah, I haven't played huge maps, etc. As you might imagine, it's worthless on smaller maps because it comes too late in the early game.

[Fried-Psitalon]

You should try them- I'd love to compare notes with a fellow "theorist" of the game. It really IS a completely different sort of 'game' at that size (and it gets you a much higher score, besides.)

[Lemmy]

One thing I like most about SEIV is the enormity of the tech tree. How big is the one in galciv?

OMG don't get me started on that....i played game with all except victory option except tech victory disabled. Military conquest always stays, because, well, if you conquer everyone else, the game is done.
Let's just say that with 100% of the resources, 75% of the all the systems, 90% research bonus, maximum trade routes, a good deal of tributes, and a 300% research bonus, it still took me 10 turns to research the big late game techs. EVen getting through the midgame techs at 2 or 3 turns per tech took me a while.

[Fried-Psitalon]

What size was your galaxy? Did you have lots of research-based improvements built? I'm not running into this problem on normal with my gigantic galaxy- most of the time I'm looking at next month-2 turns. (In fact, I rarely research something if it's beyond that. Heh!)

[yin26]

You should try them (big maps)

I certainly will! In fact, I've found the AI a little too weak on the small maps because you can so directly influence your neighbors in close proximity. As soon as Brad releases the next .exe patch --which has an update on the fly negotiations update that turns text green automatically as you adjust the slider!!!! (I've begged for that one) -- I'll load it up.

The tribute bug that actually gives you money for paying tributes has stopped me from playing the past several days.