Who has heard of GalCiv II?

[Thrawn]

Actualy thats Galactic Civilizations II found at http://www.galciv2.com/Index.aspx It is quite Moo like but also takes some hugely different directions. I have played it for a few days now and I love it and think any MOO II lover should look into it.

Also here is the Gamespot review that they just posted a matter of hours ago http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/gal ... eview.html hope you have fun looking at it and if you have any questions for me about it please ask. Of course there is a massave message board for the game at their own site that is likely more useful.

[siron]

I think most players here have heard of it. Since it has no tactical combat and no MP most Moo2 fans here seem to be uninterested.

I observed the galciv forums a bit if the strategical combat actually improves the AI performance (as Stardock claims)...but this seems no big help. It seems still weak there, especially the "feature" that the attacker get the first shot with his whole fleet seems to unbalanced. (Moo2 had the same problem before the 1.31 patch invented the ship-initiative rule.)

[Arclan]

I like GalCivII but it has nothing in common with MOO or MOO2 other than the genre: space conquest. I bought GalCivII because many folks likened it to MOO2. So wrong.

Agreed, GalCivII has no tactical combat whatsoever. It is foremost a dice rollers game. All ships keep attacking one ship until it's destroyed, etc; then move onto the next ship. The combat style is similar to the Axis and Allies boardgame.

That said, I've probably spent 40 hours playing GalCivII and do enjoy it quite a bit; aside from the highly annoying "features" that I can't believe were not dismissed during playtesting. MOO2 had no such annoying features.

Boy, would it be nice to have a real MOO2 style game in this decade...

[ALEX|D]

I downloaded the gc2 demo and gave it a chance.

This is my impression after 2-3 hours.


The Music and the intro r well made. I like it. Graphics r nice too.

So far so good.

I started a new game in a small galaxy with the humans (as the demo allows).

I took a look on the racedesign, with no clue about the game !

U can set some race abilities, like pop growth, industy, research, hitpoints for ships ... ! U also allowd to set a government like industrialists, ferderalsist, technologists ... all with theyre pros and cons.
A cool feature of the game is that u can modify the look of ur ships like u wish.

In the game:

The map lookd a bit botf (Birth of the federation) like. The gameplay is understandbale after a familiarizationphase.

On ur homeplanet u have
* research points RP
* social production SP (used to build buildings on the surface)
* military production MP (used to build ships)

And u have an economie display where u r able to set values for RP, SP and MP for ur whole empire. The values r 33% / 33% / 34% so 1/3 for each as default setting. U can set them like u wish f.e. 100 / 0 / 0 !

So if u like to research something u put 100% on RP, if u like to build a ship u put 100% on MP. But if u get more than one planet it will be not so easy to do, cos these values r setup for all ur planets.
To increase ur RP or SP or MP u can build some factories or research labs on ur planet(s).

I looked a bit around but I dont get displayd how much SP r needed to build a factory so I tryd it out. The only thing u get displayd is the amount SP my Homeplanet produces and how much turns (weeks) it takes to complete. So after I had 27 SP it says 1 turn (week) to complete I hit the turn button, but the factory now showd 1 of 2 turns to complete -.- ! I started new and tryd it with 100% SP = 32 SP iirc and it showd 1 factory in 1 turn complete. But on the next turn it wasnt build and it says again 1 of 2 turns done. So I gave it up to test more.

The shipdesign is okay, and afaik the battles r just ogame like (the computer battles for u).



Now I compare my impressions about gc2 with moo2:

racedesign:

I didnt playd gc2 much to say much about it.

economics:

MoO2 has 1 industrieal field. GC2 therefor uses 2 fields SP and MP.

In MoO2 u can set up one colony 100% for production and another for research or food, it just depends on how u set ur pop on it. In GC2 u can only set up these values for RP / SP / MP for ur whole empire.

In GC2 each planet has some fields where u can build some buildings. So if u need a fully MP planet u can build only buildings which increase the MP, I guess.
I like the idea to build more than 1 factory on each planet. In ascendancy it was possible too, to build more builds of one type on each planet.


All in all GC2 is maybe not bad but I would prefer MoO2 alone about the reason it has real battles. Further GC2 has no Multiplayer so this is just a singleplayer game.

[ALEX|D]

Now I know that a factory costs 50SP.

But GC2 dont save prod that means if u pay 49SP, 2 turns for a factory u´ll get for 98SP 1 factory, the 48SP (98-50) r just wasted .

Maybe I´m wrong but all seems that theres is just no prodsave. I spend 3 times in a row 80-100 SP for a factory.
The 4th needs 50pp too and the prod from the 3 turns before is just gone.

I checked the money .. u´ll get not bonus if u build a factory for 120SP or so.

It would be fun if u have 20-30 planets, that would gave a huge chaos !!!

The moneything is also strange if u have 4000BC and u´ll get shown -40BC after this turn u´ll have 3956BC or so, maybe the -40BC is just a cherished value.

---------- edit -----

rofl

http://galciv.wikia.com/wiki/Social_production

"If the hammers are in parenthesis it indicates that no projects are queued, and that your spending is going to waste."

I would getting nutty if I need to micromanage 30 planets each turn.


... GC2 demo has been successfully uninstalled from ur computer ... puhhhhhh

[Arclan]

Alex, great comparison between MOO2 and GalCivII. That motivates me to point out a few more.

Trading
In GalCivII, the only way to trade is to physically build a freighter and send it from one of your planets to one of their planets. This sets up one trade route. Repeat for as many trade routes as you'd like; each one generates some money. You start off with 3 max routes but can increase them by researching trade technologies. Trade routes are active and you can see the freighters going to and fro; and that means enemies can target your freighters and destroy them!

Research
Research is similar except there is no 'creative' option. Each technology must be researched individually.

I'll elaborate on some of the annoying features. Obviously, some effort was ill placed during GalCivII development. Several features clearly took a lot of work to implement and add no value to the game. For example:

1. Beep sounds. Why do some game developers think we need to hear a high pitched "beep" when doing something? Or that we want our view automatically centered when clicking an object?

2. Custom ship model design. Each ship class comes with two basic models compared to the 5+ MOO2 provides. In GalCivII, you are provided a bunch of ship elements that you can drag and drop onto your ship to create a unique design. Sounds cool, right? It isn't.

3. Upgrading ships. If you learn a new weapon technology and want to update your ship specs, there is no quick way to do so. You need to rebuild the entire ship from the ground up.

4. Auto selecting next ship. This feature is the single biggest reason playing GalCivII is low on my priority list. Let's say you have several fleets in a sector and are coordinating fleet engagements. You click on one fleet and have it move up. Well, after the ship finishes moving, the game jumps you to the 'next' fleet or ship with movement points and that could be on the other side of the map. So now you have to drag the map back to where you were, and click the next fleet and move it, only to have the map again switched to some other ship you have on the map.

This is already long winded and hey look it's time to leave work Night night.

[siron]

I really have the impression that they decided to have some silly UI decisions...just that too exact micromanagement becomes tedious and the AI has a small edge in these areas when players get bored.

Additionally, that they don't offer exact PP and RP values which are scaled with respect to gal size....I think too...it has the same reason.

This frogboy is really this fixated to have a "brilliant" AI that the game suffers in these areas.

Sad.

[Thrawn]

I don't know why so many of you dislike GalCiv so much. I have played MOO II for many years and loved it. And now I have played GalCiv for nearly 150 hours so far and am loving it just as much. Not for the same reasons though. I think most of you aren't giving it a fair chance. Oh and the demo is not very well done from my point of view.

Ya it has problems but I don't worry about it because they are so dedicated to patching the game till everything is fixed and perfected. You guys waited years to get the 1.4 patch and that had to come with reverse engenering.
For example they have fixed the production waste you mentioned. And with the patch the AI seriously does a good job and can be hard without any of the economic bonuses that MOO AIs get.
Also I think many of you don't understand the different way that money is made in GalCiv. It is based on population and production is a drain of money not a producer of it. I personaly love the way it is set up nearly forcing you to take only one stratagy and leave the others or fail.

I recomend this game to everyone I know and so far those that have spent the time to get past the learning curve have loved it as much as I do. Including two old MOO playing friends of mine. And yes they played Multiplayer with me and don't mind the GalCiv don't have it yet.

The lack of Tactical combat is defineitly the bigest let down but it is still good enough to be worth it.

Oh and for ship designs if you don't care about how it looks just dubble click on each part you want on the ship and it is done. Not much harder than MOO and if the time is spent it looks many hundereds of times cooler than any MOO ship.

[ALEX|D]

I don't know why so many of you dislike GalCiv so much.

I think its just a matter of taste

For example they have fixed the production waste you mentioned.

wow ... that´s an important thing imho.

I think the two reasons I dont play it, r MP and Combats. I´ll watch the GC2 progress, maybe I´ll give it another try once ... !

[Thrawn]

My point with the Production waste is that they are willing to change even some of the more fundemental game functions that many other developers would refuse to.

If you are the type to care that much about multiplayer then just wait till they release the expansion for it. They have said they will eventualy but they aren't sure when yet. They also said they already have the "plumbing" in the game for it but are more concerned with other things right now.

I do not think they will ever have tactical combat in the game but it can be good without it as long as the rest it well enough done.

I am also waiting for a direct and well produced successor to MOO II with full tactical combat and everything.

[Matthew]

My point with the Production waste is that they are willing to change even some of the more fundemental game functions that many other developers would refuse to.

If you are the type to care that much about multiplayer then just wait till they release the expansion for it. They have said they will eventualy but they aren't sure when yet. They also said they already have the "plumbing" in the game for it but are more concerned with other things right now.

I do not think they will ever have tactical combat in the game but it can be good without it as long as the rest it well enough done.


I am also waiting for a direct and well produced successor to MOO II with full tactical combat and everything.

I think the main reason they left out tactical combat is because it makes it a lot easier to program a challenging AI. If you don't pick tactical combat as an option in MOO2 it makes playing in single player mode a lot more challenging but the AIs are not really any "Smarter." You are handicapped by the really bad ship design along with the AIs.

There are just so many other games that are way better than GC2. Oblivion, Civ4, Battlefield2, etc.

There's even a few indie games that I consider to be better games.

There is a game that will be released soon called "Sword of the Stars" that combines the 4x strategy and 3D tactical combat. From the previews, it looks like a much better game than GC2 will ever be.

[siron]

I don't know why so many of you dislike GalCiv so much.

Well, there are obviously some guys who played moo2 8-10 years ago and who are now enjoying GalCiv2 (or several other space-based 4X games). But the hardcore fans who play moo2 even nowadays play it because of the reasons I mentioned above:
1) MP - especially on this board.
2) tactical combat.

Even Stardock claimed several times that GC2 is no Moo. And they are simply right. It is only the surface which looks similar for some reviewers.

Personally, I need tactical elements in a strategy game. For example, I love chess because of this. GalCiv was never my cup of tea. A pure strategy game without any significant tactical elements is almost a complete different genre for me. And I never liked such games, I think they are boring after a while. Taste, you know?

[Retsia]

I know what you mean...


I have GalCiv2 and played it...and liked it a little but I felt that it missed something HUGE!

and that is tactical combat....

[Time]

I bought it receintly. The box gave the impression it would be a good game. And perhaps, if one is prefers one player games only, then this might work for them.

For me, the LAN/Internet option is a must. It would be like a basketball player playing/practicing his game, his moves, his strategy, only to never find another basketball court anywhere. He/She would never need those skills.

The thrill of a Real challange, by a Real Opponent, with Real strategies is what many would agree IS the purpose to any game. When you win, you get that feeling of success, and when you are beaten, you learn new strategies, respect for your opponent and their picks.

I hope they do add a multiplayer option to GalCiv2. I do like its larger maps, setup for Corners or Duel maps, the ability to change the technology rate(very slow, slow, normal, fast, or very fast) and the ability to build starbases in open space (sort of a border protection/fall back point) or to be used for mining, trade, or research bonuses in neighboring systems within a certain radius. And some of the different picks like Courage, Planet Quality and Sensors)

They will have to make some other improvements as well, to make it a "Great" game. Including: (1)Tactical Combat (We have to have our own strategy), (2)More habitable planets/system (On most of my maps, there is only 1 habitable planet/system, some have a minor 4pop, and some have no habitables), (3)More variety on the starting picks. Some of like options like Lithovore, Telepathic, or Cyber, not to mention Warlord's extra command point bonus or Subterranean's extra pop bonus.

The Best thing I can say about GalCiv2, is that there were NO STARLANES!!!

[whosafudge]

I was just checking out that game in the store the other day. Note that I'm a little behind these days with the games. Finding more time I have to kill.
I always liked the MOO strategy part better than the combat part. Building a huge, vast empire, that makes a lot of cheese.
Thanks for the tip Thrawn. I may check into it.