GalCiv II ToA < Civ IV BtS

[TowerWizard]

There are a lot of nice elements in this game. The graphics, the music, the general feeling are all great. There are also a lot of mechanics, however, that bugs me.

1) The tech tree is too long and varied. Notwithstanding the choices you have to do and the problems this brings, the time it takes to just be able to attack your enemies is horrendous. I have not counted the numbers of techs, but to be able to assault an opponent with any certainty of success you have a long way to go (weapon techs, armor techs, life support, engines, invasion techs...). In BtS you only need one tech (bronze working) to be able to kick butt. Also, do you really need 4 techs in laser? All the next tech does is make the laser take less space. This is a time-waster like nothing else.

2) Starbases. I don't like these at all. First, you need them to win. Second, you need a lot of them to win. Third, you need to build A LOT of ships to build them. Forth, you can build 4 of them in every sector and they stack... This increases the time the game takes to play, without adding fun to it at all.

3) Ship design. At first, this is a cool feature. It is cool until you realize how much time you have to spend designing ships. Then is is NOT fun.

4) Resources and special tiles. In Civ, your start determines victory to some extent, but doubly so in GalCiv. Precursor artifacts that give a +700% bonus?! Are you nuts? That TOTALLY unbalances the game to the point where you think "Why bother, I have no Precursor mine in this start. Reload."

5) Hidden mechanics. How does stuff work? How do you translate a factory's production into shields? Why can't you control more than 21 billion people, and are you suppose to find that out the hard way? How exactly is it better to have a higher Diplomacy score? I have more questions still.

6) The campaigns. First, even though the tech tree is cut, it takes forever to tech since you have so few planets. Second, humans, with bonuses to diplomacy and penalties to war, in a setting where diplomacy is useless and skill at war are paramount? Third, you have to be a moron not to max war abilities when setting up the game. Forth, you get no help in learning the game playing these. No pop-ups, no example battles, no nothing.

7) The robots that present the newly researched techs. Just look at them. Four arms, two of which are attached to the back?

I don't really need to go on, do I? In short, I liked this game for, like, a week, but then I tired of all the needless complications and the endless designing's and research. The technology pace in Civ is logical, fun, and every tech matters. In GalCiv, the difference in techs are sometimes so small as to be worthless time consumers. Realistic, sure, but not very interesting. So, I am back to playing BtS.

 

[Strato]

You raised some good points TowerWizard and I do have to agree with a number of them, paticularly points 4 and 5. That said, I'm not going to rebut your points, but instead go off on a bit of a tangent and indicate some of the strengths that Gal Civ has over Civ IV.

Firstly, the implementation of the stack of doom, which invariably happens in these sorts of games. The arrangement of fleets does permit a stack which adds a distinct tactical thinking element to the game. However, given the broad reaches of space, and lack of chokepoints, having all of your fleet in one stack isn't exactly worthwhile.

Secondly, the AI is a lot more intelligent than Civ IV. It does carefully balance between the need for growth, and the need for military might. I have been caught off guard a number of time being taken down by a smaller enemy for the simple fact that I didn't pay attention to their military might and find myself surrounded by their ships. I do agree that to invade a world requires an unneccesary and expensive tech.

Also, not all the robots have four arms, that is my only rebuttal (I lied earlier)

To me, both games are fun, I just look at the strengths of each game, what each one brings to the table so to speak. Certainly, I hope with Stardock's upcoming game Elemental that they consider one of the points you raised about hidden mechanics, and document it better. And to not just go with a cool factor, but balance the coolness with practical use.

 

[TowerWizard]

Strato, I didn't understand if you liked the fleets or not. Seems to me you did, but didn't see the point with them. Your second point is valid. Civ would need smarter AI, and GalCiv is better in that respect.

I read my post again and realized that I just whine and don't try to make the game better. So, here's a list of how I would have liked to have the game changed.

1) A shorter tech tree, although the option that makes research faster helps a lot.

2) Only permit one of every type of starbase in every sector of the galaxy. This both adds to the tactical element of the game, as well as saves time. Some civs may have special techs that allow more of a certain type of starbase, that is fine. Also, make upgrades cost time and money, not additional constructors! This allows you to focus on other things, and not have you build hundreds of constructors that just annoys and distracts you. Also, lessen the effect of resources, and, of course, make those starbases "free", but not as upgradable.

3) With a shorter tech tree, you need to design fewer ships. There should also be much more and better types of standard ships.

4) Remove from the game every special tile that adds more than +200% to production/research/whatever. Instead, make some tiles upgradable with certain techs and certain objects found in the galaxy. Remove all of those +1% bonuses as well and replace them with more though-out things that add to gameplay, like ship parts that you can attach to ships of your choice, materials that need to be brought to a lab for analysis etc. This would add a lot to gameplay.

5) Remove the need of certain things to take up space on a planet. Trade goods, for example, should be an upgrade to a factory, so that the factory produces the good.

6) Explain most of the mechanics. Make the game transparent.

These changes would make the game much much more playable in my eyes.

 

[Fistleaf]

With all these changes requested only after the game is developed with the final expansion pack, it wouldn't be called GalCiv2 anymore, maybe TowerWizardGalCiv. You can always mod the game with all the changes you need. Regarding game mechanics, the GalCiv wiki has some details.

 

[TowerWizard]

That would be quite a long name, not to mention hard to motivate, don't you agree? But I like the sound of it! But alas, I don't know how to mod games. I have never taken a real course in programming, just a few matlab introductions.

I just post suggestions/complaints here in the hopes that they might influence the views of the people reading them, and thereby maybe change the coming games for the better, the way I see it. One post here on the forums was from the producer of the game, so I hope he is reading this, even though that post was a few years old. It is a sad fact that I did not find this game earlier, otherwise I might have influenced a patch. Just maybe.

 

[Sarcasticon]

...
I just post suggestions/complaints here in the hopes that they might influence the views of the people reading them, and thereby maybe change the coming games for the better, the way I see it. One post here on the forums was from the producer of the game, so I hope he is reading this, even though that post was a few years old. It is a sad fact that I did not find this game earlier, otherwise I might have influenced a patch. Just maybe.

In fact the developers listened a lot to feedback from the gaming community, not only on their own forums. However if you see the hundreds of recommendations they've received after GalCiv and the original GalCiv II release, it's very understandable that the choices they made don't always please everyone.
That being said, you do raise a couple of valid points but then again other people may disagree with what we think.

 

[Strato]

Firstly, it is possible that there will be further enhancements to Gal Civ II. I'm sure I read somewhere that Stardock are developing another patch/update for the game, which will no doubt include features that the fans want. Remember that ToA was greatly opened up with the editors. Here may not be the best place to post ideas and suggestions, however TowerWizard was simply responding in a logical, well thought way of justifying his (?her) comments and gripes with the game. Frankly, it is a much better approach than saying "this game suxorz"

This thread alone has made me think I can play an active role in Stardock's upcoming Elemental game, a game I will be buying no doubt. It is great that a producer/developer does consider advice from the gaming public, otherwise they probably couldn't live up to their general ideology of "making games for gamers."

Certainly, if there was one thing I would change about the game, it would be to allow starbases to be upgraded via asteroids beaming their produce directly onto the starbase, thus eliminating that common complaint about having to build x number of constructors to upgrade it. Of course, how the AI manages that sort of rule would be another thing. But I digress from what I was going to comment on which is fleets and the SoD.

Essentially, the point which I really did not elaborate clearly on was that while Civ IV has the great SoD that is characteristic in pretty much all wars, Gal Civ II does away with that by implementing fleets. And the fact that it is in space, and big wide open fronts to defend. Having your whole galaxy fleet arranged and flying as one giant stack to me has been pointless, consider the AI could have a number of faster vessals that can potentially outflank and circle around you. I've had that happen before, though maybe from pure luck that I missed it. However, that's the point, by spreading yourself out a little bit, you can see much more and respond to it accordingly. And yet, having an SoD makes things a little bit more manageable when it comes to moving armies around.

I do like the fleets because it is a nice balance between individually moving units, having an SoD, and including a real strategic element, noticeable with the ToA expansion. If Civ IV had such a feature, (ie: self contained armies) then, well, it might detract from the game perhaps, because I'm sure that has been considered, but it would make combat a little more interesting. So that said, I guess each to their own, my point is more that Gal Civ II and Civ IV each bring something different to the table, and my original post was designed to reflect that. I couldn't say one is better or worse than the other, they are their unique games in their own right.

And I think this post is even more confusing, I really am finding it hard to articulate what I want to say.

 

[RichPowers]

Brad Wardell said that once Stardock ships Demigod, they'll release another GalCiv II patch.

So if you have any concerns about the game, I'd recommend posting them on the official forums. Either someone will explain a game mechanic, point you in the direction of a mod, or, if you're lucky, patch in the fix

I visit the Elemental website every now and then. Stardock updates the dev blog about 2x a week. Interesting stuff.

 

[Fistleaf]

I just post suggestions/complaints here in the hopes that they might influence the views of the people reading them, and thereby maybe change the coming games for the better, the way I see it.

Actually, I think the changes you propose are already implementable by modding. Maybe you can get one of the expert modders to teach you, or better still beg them to mod the game for you.

That way, everybody gets to play the game the way they like it.

 

[flyingchicken]

How do you translate a factory's production into shields?

Easy. Multiply it with your production spending percentage (defaults at 33%, but I do prefer it at 99%, 1% for military and 0% for research).

 

[TowerWizard]

If I build a factory with a stated manufacturing potential of 8 units of production, and I have social spending set to 50% and Military set to 0% (and 100% work rate), it produces 4 units of production. Has this nothing to do with the amount of people on the planet, as Research labs seems to have, since they increases research by a percentage? But, even with a tiny population, Research labs seems to add its full potential. So, the only thing affected by population is in fact taxes and economy buildings? What about influence? Does that increase by a set amount as I build an influence building, or is it tied to population? All of this should be much more clearly stated somewhere!

No matter, I don't really care. I tired of GalCiv after less than a week. Nothing yet beats Civ IV BtS.

 

[JonathanStrange]

Hmmm...having played both games (their versions anyway) for years, I've forgotten which things seemed unclear to me then. I do know I went to their respective forums and got the answers to questions if I really needed them.

I love having plenty of techs to research; I've never found that aspect of the game tedious or slowing down the game at all. What I do not care for in GalCiv2 is the tendency - particularly true in the earlier versions - for techs to be bland, to seem inconsequential: we get a 5% faster ship, 4% stronger shields ,etc.

Designing ships was fun for awhile, but one doesn't have to design at all. I just download some of the cooler designs other people have done and use their Enterprises, Birds of Prey, their Bablylon 5 attack ships, etc.

I prefer Civ IV ultimately though because it feels far more vivid, more relate-able: "...the Isle of Rome is our homeland, the Stone Mountain range channels the enemy's movement, we must conquer the Turkish peninsula, the Big River is where we make our stand..."

In contrast, much of GalCiv 2 still feels like fighting for anonymous planets surrounded by vast emptiness and little strategic "must hold" terrain. Despite all this, I've had plenty of exciting knock-down fights with the AI, far more than with Civ IV's AI.

If GalCiv 2 had more "flavor", I'd give it the edge.

 

[WuphonsReach]

I prefer Civ IV ultimately though because it feels far more vivid, more relate-able: "...the Isle of Rome is our homeland, the Stone Mountain range channels the enemy's movement, we must conquer the Turkish peninsula, the Big River is where we make our stand..."

In contrast, much of GalCiv 2 still feels like fighting for anonymous planets surrounded by vast emptiness and little strategic "must hold" terrain. Despite all this, I've had plenty of exciting knock-down fights with the AI, far more than with Civ IV's AI.

If GalCiv 2 had more "flavor", I'd give it the edge.

I think that's also why I haven't been able to get "into" GC2 as well, even though I was a *big* fan of MOO2. Geography matters a lot to me for gameplay, there needs to be choke points, unique terrain features and tactical advantages for holding this spot over another beyond "it has a lot of resources". MOO2 had a fine balance at the start of the game with limited ship range and things like the nebula clouds and black holes, but in late-game ship ranges got too big and ships got too fast.

(I was really dissapointed in MOO3... I loved the star lanes because it added geography back in, but the UI was simply horrid.)

 

[GoodGame]

There are a lot of nice elements in this game. The graphics, the music, the general feeling are all great. There are also a lot of mechanics, however, that bugs me.

1) The tech tree is too long and varied. Notwithstanding the choices you have to do and the problems this brings, the time it takes to just be able to attack your enemies is horrendous. I have not counted the numbers of techs, but to be able to assault an opponent with any certainty of success you have a long way to go (weapon techs, armor techs, life support, engines, invasion techs...). In BtS you only need one tech (bronze working) to be able to kick butt. Also, do you really need 4 techs in laser? All the next tech does is make the laser take less space. This is a time-waster like nothing else.

2) Starbases. I don't like these at all. First, you need them to win. Second, you need a lot of them to win. Third, you need to build A LOT of ships to build them. Forth, you can build 4 of them in every sector and they stack... This increases the time the game takes to play, without adding fun to it at all.

3) Ship design. At first, this is a cool feature. It is cool until you realize how much time you have to spend designing ships. Then is is NOT fun.

4) Resources and special tiles. In Civ, your start determines victory to some extent, but doubly so in GalCiv. Precursor artifacts that give a +700% bonus?! Are you nuts? That TOTALLY unbalances the game to the point where you think "Why bother, I have no Precursor mine in this start. Reload."

5) Hidden mechanics. How does stuff work? How do you translate a factory's production into shields? Why can't you control more than 21 billion people, and are you suppose to find that out the hard way? How exactly is it better to have a higher Diplomacy score? I have more questions still.

6) The campaigns. First, even though the tech tree is cut, it takes forever to tech since you have so few planets. Second, humans, with bonuses to diplomacy and penalties to war, in a setting where diplomacy is useless and skill at war are paramount? Third, you have to be a moron not to max war abilities when setting up the game. Forth, you get no help in learning the game playing these. No pop-ups, no example battles, no nothing.

7) The robots that present the newly researched techs. Just look at them. Four arms, two of which are attached to the back?

I don't really need to go on, do I? In short, I liked this game for, like, a week, but then I tired of all the needless complications and the endless designing's and research. The technology pace in Civ is logical, fun, and every tech matters. In GalCiv, the difference in techs are sometimes so small as to be worthless time consumers. Realistic, sure, but not very interesting. So, I am back to playing BtS.

@#1. The tech tree is pretty much the promotions system of Civ4, so there's a Rock-paper-scissors element. So that's actually pretty good to have a long tech tree. ToA's tech tree does a good job of giving the races more character, and more strategy to teching.

@#2 I agree on Starbases. Starbases are like the caravans of Civ2. Basically a good play mechanic, but too much user input/micromanagement to get them to work right.

@#3. I agree, though really it suggests an Obsessive-Compulsive disorder if you can't refuse making ships. Plus there's plenty to install from online, so it's merely a nit.

The main GalCiv2 weakness vs. Civ4 is a lack of true mods, and the questing option would be neat, but otherwise its a strong competitor to Civ4.

 

[scratchthepitch]

From what I read about GalCiv2, I had high expectations for this game. When I finally got a chance to play the game, it was a bit of a let down. Breaking the planets down into sectors that can accommodate only one type a facility each adds an unnecessary complication and layer of micromanagement tedium to the game. MOO2's build-up layout was much better. GalCiv2 is too much like MOO3 in this way. The star bases are another thing I really didn't care for and realistically, they don't make much sense either. The game is OK for the most part, otherwise, but those 2 things really dampened my interest in playing the game along with almost a complete lack of documentation about how the game components affect game play. The manual is much too vague and only provides a rough outline. If I had not been so determined to like this game, because of prior expectations, I wouldn't have made the sort of effort I made to understand how it works. I would have moved on much sooner. Probably a lot of prospective players get turned off the game fairly quickly due to this unnecessary lack of adequate documentation. I did find enough things about the game that were enjoyable that I will definitely be interested in the next version of the game.

That is something I cant say about Civ4. This game felt like the makers had regressed all the way back to the original Civ1. They simplified the things that would be better with more detail and complicated the stuff that should have been streamlined. It's total rubbish. It's also very juvenile. Lions and tigers and bears....oh my! With the older civs one felt like the game was designed for teenagers and older. Civ4 seems like a game designed for ages teenage and younger. Unlike GalCiv2, there is absolutely nothing to recommend about this game. It's juvenile, and the "history", it's major selling point being supposedly a historical strategy game, is bogus ahistorical garbage. There is little logic to it. Example: in the game's beginning, it's 4000BC, you have a group of hunter-gathers/nomads who want to settle down, but they cant hunt, fish, farm, raise stock, they probably cant even pick their nose without researching some idiotic advance first. Another: I had a unit auto-moved from one spot to another on the other side of a bay, and the unit first went to the coast, then back-tracked around, wasting a few turns. This is really poor programming reminiscent of the early 90's and a problem with all the Civ versions where you had to walk a unit, holding its hand, from point a to point b so the unit wouldn't get lost along the way. Programming a simple "go to" command is not difficult, computer chess programming utilized this decades ago. There is no excuse for such shoddy programming now. It shows that the developers are still using the same basic primitive Civ program they started with and just tweaked it a bit and added more eye-candy. Rather than improve upon the series, the developers kept the worst, most illogical things of past versions, dropped most of the things in the game that made it worth playing and then tacked on a few new rather annoying items that detract from play, such as a really pathetic, generic religion model and some of the worst "3D" graphics I've ever seen. The game's name should be changed to Drivelization4. Since then, the Civ series has been degraded still further with Civ Revolution.

While I am looking forward to see what Stardock comes up with next and expect the GalCiv series will be improved with the next installment, I have absolutely no doubt that Firaxis will only make the Civ series worse. Sad to see a product that could have been something so thoroughly trashed to attract the knuckle-dragging, lowest common denominator crowd and attention span deficit kiddies. While GalCiv2 was not really the game I hoped it would be, I believe the makers do play their games and take an active interest in the product and their customers, while I feel Firaxis just shove out the door whatever they think will make them the most money for the least effort, the customer be dammed. It's like a music group that put out 3 albums, each as good or better than the one before, who then go for the money and do generic disco pap for their 4th album and then Brittany Spears covers for their 5th.