How does Galactic Civ 2 compare to Civ

[Mike Hussey]

Hi there,

I'm thinking of looking into buying this game, but just wanted to ask; how does it compare to the Civilization series, Civ3 in particular? Is the game a Civ engine with a space flavour coating? or is it better/worse/different?

 

[Mckertis]

I'll tell you about just one aspect of this game, which made me sell it rather quickly - horrible, horrible interface. If you ever played Civ3 or 4 you have seen the best. In Civ all mechanics are completely transparent, you can actually PLAN IN ADVANCE to build something or execute some STRATEGY.

Not so in GalCiv2, oh no. Want to create some building on a planet ? Want to know how long it will take ? Tough luck, you will only see the ETA number when you actually order the thing you want. Before it said "Never", but when you order something its suddenly "5 weeks", what ? Same with ships, impossible to predict what affects build time. Same with research, laboratory description gives you one number, actual "beakers" on the planet is another number, and planet summary gives you the third number. All different numbers, of course. Tech tree is uninteresting, and if you discover that some component requires another tech - the game will not actually tell you what that other tech you're supposed to be getting.

Sorting planets/ships in the list is horribly inefficient and secretive, too, even MOO2 had better colony list back in '96.

I cant tell you more about the game, because i was so disgusted about not being able to understand how everything works, i didnt play it much at all. Complete lack of game mechanic transparency prevents it even remotely being in the same league as Civ games. Dont think that the mechanics will be explained in the manual - they wont be, manual is completely useless in that regard.

Maybe there's some hidden beauty to the game, but its a b**ch to control, thats for sure. People who praised Stardock for creating good interfaces must have been high or something. I await Elemental with gravely suspicions.

 

[klaidonis]

I will tell you what.

There is a difficulty level when neither an AI nor a player get a handicap. It's "Noble" in Civ IV and "Tough" in GalCiv 2.

Winning Noble in Civ IV is just a cakewalk. Having known basics of the game it's easy to crush AI's even not using advanced strategies. I started to play Civ IV on this level and never played more than one game.

But after 10 attempts I still cannot win GalCiv 2 even on the level Normal which is 2 levels lower than Tough. As a handicap I have 20% economic advantage (more gold generated) and the AI doesn't use the most advanced algorithms. And it plays better than me.

So it depends. If you want a challenge in the form of ridiculous AI bonuses, insane upgrade discounts, and other things one could consider cheating, then Civ IV is good enough. If you want to face a smart and cunning opponent using one of the best game AI algorithms give GalCiv a try. For me that's the most important difference between those 2 games.

And the GalCiv interface is perfect. It's like Civ IV released with the BUG mod from the start. It's complex and the learning curve is very steep, but when you start to use even 70% of its' features you know how should any 4X game interface look like.

Having said that I don't mean that I stop playing Civ IV. I like both games but I like different aspects of theirs gameplay.

 

[Mckertis]

It's like Civ IV released with the BUG mod from the start.

You must be joking. Civ4 tells me every single thing i possibly would want to know about the game, ever. With BUG mod it tells me all that on one screen. GC2 doesnt tell me anything, and even the information thats there, you have to jump the hoops to mine.

It's complex and the learning curve is very steep

Try Space Empires 3 through 5, thats complex. GC is just bad.

 

[klaidonis]

Tell me what GC2 hasn't told you and I'll try to find it. Otherwise we're just comparing our personal preferences. Obviously, they are different.

 

[Sarcasticon]

Only saw this discussion now, but I felt that I should defend GalCiv2.
I'm the type of player who opens up the game and starts playing it without a manual for a while, until I feel the need to improve by honing my finer skills.
In the case of GalCiv2 I have to say it worked fine, though in order to manage empires of hundreds of planets and ships, I would have to do some more digging and find more efficient ways of working.
But overall I think the interface is pretty intuitive and it's a great game to play, that coming from someone who prefers medieval settings over space.


And yes, the AI is a hell of a lot better than most other games, as it puts up quite a challenge without having any bonuses over the human players.
I would say it plays differently from Civ 3 (never played Civ 4). Not totally, completely, utterly different but there's more to it than just changing the setting from earth to space.

Isn't there a demo available that you could check out, as that would still be the best way to find out whether you like the game?

 

[Quintillus]

Same with ships, impossible to predict what affects build time.

If you design the ships yourself, you'll know how expensive it is, and thus will know the approximate amount of time it will take to build. I can't recall the others being so difficult to determine either, but can't recall how to determine them off the top of my head.

The ship design actually is a major difference in itself. In Civ, you discover a tech, and are able to build certain units. In GalCiv2, you discover a tech, and are able to create units with some new ability. So if you discover Laser Weapons, you can now add Lasers to your ships, not just being able to build some Laser Ship. You can combine lasers and rockets if you like, in whatever ratio you prefer. Heap on the armor, or put all your effort into weapons. Make a superheavy unit transport that doubles as a battle cruiser (although that's very expensive!). Add modules that extend the range of sight of your units, or how far they can travel from a base. If you realize your ships aren't getting to the front fast enough, redesign them - if you do it properly, you'll be able to upgrade your existing ones. While I don't consider this approach to be doubtlessly superior to Civ's approach as some do, it's certainly a fun addition that adds another challenge to the game.

 

[CornPlanter]

When you research the tech in Civ4, you can see how many turns it takes. But if you change your slider, all of the sudden the number of turns left changes too. Its exactly the same in Galactic Civilizations II but with every aspect of the game: buildings, ships and, well, science too.

For me Galactic Civ II is like dumbed down Civ4 version: easier, less complicated, less interesting. On a good side - better AI, some more options in certain areas (like diplomacy, you can actually move borders by trading influence points, or units - you do build your own and it's not for a flavor but for efficiency).

Dont get me wrong, it is a good game, it's just Civ4 is better overall.

I play Civ4 @ Emperor and I play Galactic Civ II @ Challenging (and it's getting too easy already after ~5 games).

 

[m4gill4]

I like Gal Civ 2. While the interface is more complex than in civilization games, the game in general is also more complex; the tech tree is huge, more buildings, trade routes are manually created, etc. There is a learning curve but I don't think it's unmanageable.

The drawback to Gal Civ 2, and the reason I don't play it much, is the lack of tactical combat. I find the combat system to be very minimal rock-paper-scissors arrangement and doesn't allow for situations where numerical superiority can be overcome with clever tactics. At least civIV has things like promotions and defensive bonuses and terrain advantages, and you can choose the order your units will attack.

If gal civ had included a tactical combat option along the lines of MOO or MOOII then I think it would have been a huge improvement. In that situation, clever tactics or a useful tech can turn the tide of battle as much as numerical superiority, which would make a small peaceful empire a more viable strategy.

 

[klaidonis]

I play Civ4 @ Emperor and I play Galactic Civ II @ Challenging

See, you're playing 1 level beneath the equal one in Galactic Civ II and 3 levels above the equal one in CIV. I think the AI in Galactic Civ II is amazing. I also think that the AI is the most important thing in turn base strategies.

I beat Monarch and I'm going to move to Emperor in CIV, but I'm still fighting Challenging in Galactic Civ II.

it's getting too easy already after ~5 games.

BTW, what are your galaxy settings in Galactic Civ II?

The drawback to Gal Civ 2, and the reason I don't play it much, is the lack of tactical combat. I find the combat system to be very minimal rock-paper-scissors arrangement and doesn't allow for situations where numerical superiority can be overcome with clever tactics.

I think this is one of the wisest game design decisions. This is what makes GalCiv a true strategic game.

You cannot win tactically in CIV either. You have to build more units, more siege or research further to have technologically superior army. But a combination of the ability to design ships with the inability to fight every combat makes a player a true Supreme Leader of a Galactic Civilization.

As a Supreme Leader you can direct your spies (at least in Twilight of the Arnor), you scientists, and you ship designers to provide the fleet with the optimal ships, but you cannot sit in every gunman or captain seat. When the fleet is engaged in a battle the only thing you can do is to wait for reports from the front-line.

It's very lifelike.

 

[Gresharas]

I have the basic game [no expansions].

It is a nice game. The strong part of it is the ability to custom any race you want to use and the in-game design of your ships. It also possess a rather strong AI that do not rely on bonusses but on better logic, at least until the higher difficulties [very high, you will hardly reach them].

Is suffer a bit of micromanagement and sloppy interface, but I've seen much, much worse stuff than that - GC II interface is just average.



The good:

the ship builder is VERY nice, all ships are fully customizable

good AI

easy to learn, civ-like diplomacy

it have a good replayability and very good price/play hours ratio

you do not require the cd to run it, have no noisy copy protection

easy to learn, hard to master, rock-paper-scissor combat


The bad:

micromanagement issues on big maps

steep learn curve, some counterintuitive mechanics

you will find patches only on their site [fair, they had to defend intellectual property in some way]

 

[scratchthepitch]

That seems to be a fair enough assessment. I didn't have much time to play the game. Played it at a friend's place during a weekend I was visiting. This was several months ago.

My experience with Civ4 is similar, a weekend last summer. Plus downloading and playing the demo soon after the game was released. I found Civ4 easier to play than GC2. I also found it a lot less interesting to play. Felt like I was playing kid's console game. In a brief look at the new Civ5 teasers today, I noticed that some of the changes made from Civ3 to 4 are being removed, so I guess at least with some of those changes which I didn't care for, I was not alone. Something that made me smile, is that they are stepping up to SSI's simplified Panzer General style of combat from way back in the mid 90's. If they were able to duplicate that minimal unit combat complexity, it means they're only 15 years behind the times now.

 

[Tecibbar]

Some problems of GC2 that turn me off.

1. Sometimes it says that a improvement takes one turn to finish, but takes 2.
2. No Civipedia, makes learning and planning research path very hard. As a new player, I have no idea how my action could affect my empire
3. No tactical level, you can't really feel just how awesome your designer ships are.
4. Tech tree linear.
5. Not much complexity. In civ, you have wonders, Great people, religion etc. In GC2 you just get upgraded version of factory, farm, lab, weapon. And government types make little difference.

That's why after trying it for a couple of hours, I went back to Civ4.

 

[mossmonster]

Different people like different aspects of civ games. I liked it.

 

[ClasuSiosa]

I would say that while some hate the interface and there are some drawbacks to GalCiv2, it is still an AMAZING GAME, it almost got me to give up civ! So it just depends on taste. Either you like it or you dont.
The greatest part of the game is the costomizibility of it all, Civs, Tech trees, Ships, everything, way easyer than civ. Gameplay is kinda slow but the costomizibility and variable AI are definatly redeming factors.

 

[Mckertis]

People who praised Stardock for creating good interfaces must have been high or something. I await Elemental with gravely suspicions.

Well wasnt i so right about that.

 

[NASAROG]

The ultimate version can be bought for $20. Excellent buy for that price. A solid game (space opera-esque) after everything has been updated, patched and made to work. Stardock recently did another balance patch with a couple of added things, and a few bug fixes. If nothing else, they support their games. I like it.

 

[Distorted Humor]

GCII AI is deadly...Civ IV you can really get a sense of it in say, five plays.

GCII has a much larger learning curve, but once your used to it, it is a very good product.

 

[Sparthage]

I too love the way the GCII AI plays. Playing usually 2 levels above normal (I always forget what it is) I am quite comfortable.

 

[Flowerpunkt]

Well wasnt i so right about that.

Haha. Hardly. Interesting that Ive been playing GavCivII for more than two years but I never experienced issues that bothered you (& the same I can say for the most of the complains in this topic..). Mainly "how long it will take" issue is ridiculous (cuz your economy was obviously a mess..then you get a mess as well..simple as that). The real issue is, that you never bothered to read anything about game mechanics (which are quite simple btw.). And what the real mystery to me is, that you recommend Space empires 5 over GavCiv II which is much much more user-friendly than hard-core overcomplex-megalomanic stuff for minority of players SP5. If you cant get GaVCivII basics, youll never ever get it in Space empires 5.

...
"5. Not much complexity. In civ, you have wonders, Great people, religion etc. In GC2 you just get upgraded version of factory, farm, lab, weapon. And government types make little difference."

Not true at all. You just have to play that game a bit to see all its possibilities. For example you can get about 20 wonders with differ bonuses + bunch of special buildings. You can choose between good, evil and neutrality (and you get differ bonuses and special buildings) that affects you in many ways. Each race get differ tech tree and you can customize each AI in many ways + megaevents (Dread lords, plague..etc..).

It reminds me complains of realtime-strategy player playing for the first time Civilization game. Everyone who knows the game will find their complains rather ridiculous.