What I want in Galciv3

Can anyone remember in Dr Who where the planet of the Daleks had gone through such a terrible, long war that it reverted back to the stone age? It's a common enough theme in lots of science fiction. On the other hand, the Civ manual explained that war was the stimulus that lead to new technology and development. So too, I guess, with WW2 and the Cold War. And (although I know nothing about the period I get the impression that) ancient civilizations lived in pretty much perpetual states of war.

Which is true? does war lead to regression or development? I reckon the answer is this: in an old-fashioned society, war was a feasible state. But in a modern society, war might provide brief stimulation, but it can't be kept up for long. Indeed, that's what happens in Civ3 and Europa Universalis.

I'd like to see this in GalCiv3. Where too many wars make you regress. Where too large a dominion makes you fall apart. (yeah, Civ3 had it, and everyone complained because the limit seemed so hamfisted, but I like the idea). I want to see Galciv4 where "conquering the universe" just doesn't happen. The bigger you get, the more fragile your unity is, and if you're too fragile then a single incident can make your empire fall to pieces.

The skill and gameplay in this sort of game wouldn't come from building an enormous number of homogenous worlds which all churn out a neverending stream of Battleships or Terror Stars or Mobile Artillery. Instead it'd come from crafting a smaller empire that's more perfect in itself, and that gets on better with its neighbours, than any other empire.

So what's the point? Who wins in the end?

Here's an idea for a goal, based on the tabletop game "Credo". As the game progresses, the empires gradually form larger and larger alliances, and the universe matures into peace. Every so often there will be questions as to the functioning and way-of-life of these alliances. You will try to persuade everyone that your ideas are best. They will put forward their ideas. Compromise, conflict, pressure, threats, diplomacy, power, friendliness, prejudices, they'll all come into this horse-trading. Maybe the game ends with a single Galactic Unification government, or with several equal, stable antagonistic factions. In any case, the winner is the race who managed to get their philosophy to shape the the universe the most.

The game won't degenerate into micro-management, because empires get more fragile as they get bigger, so limiting their size. (too big, and even a small recession might be enough to trigger a collapse, like in Crimson Skies). Maybe there'd be a sort of "limiter" built into the research, so that as the game advances, it gets harder and harder to pull ahead of the other empires. (Instead, in most current games, it gets easier and easier to pull ahead of them, which is why I feel that most games are built around the "ethnic cleansing" model.)

That means that the mechanics of war and conflict will be important in the early stages of the game; the mechanics of tweaking and optimising the running of your empire become important in the middle of the game; and the mechanics of alliances and influence become important later on in the game. In this respect, it'd be similar to "Europa 1400".

That's what I'd like to see in GalCiv3!
760 views 27 replies
Reply #1 Top
I haven't played any of these other games (I buy maybe a game every 1.5 years) but this sounds great! May take a few years to get there, though.

-Robert
Reply #2 Top
I think the point of the Daleks story you mentioned is that technology can reach the point that a war can be so devistating that all of the knowledgable people get distroyed (think of what the atom bomb might have done if the US and USSR had started duking it out with ACBMs during the "cold war").
Reply #3 Top
and I just thought of another example of total loss of tech. Try the H. G. Wells story about the guy that built a time machine.
Reply #4 Top
Now that I think about it, that was ICBMs (InterContenental Balistic Missles), not ACBMs.
Reply #5 Top
No offense Citizen Lucian - but I think your proposal, while a valid opinion - a still a dumb idea.

people who play turn based strategy games that involve galatic expansion WANT to conquer the whole galaxy as a valid victory condition. They want to expant into new technologies and pull ahead of other civilizations. They DON'T artifical limiters based on this preconceived notion that a large empire can't be managed.

One thing history has tought us is that new forms of governemnt,management and technology are needed to management growing empires - and they are invented along with the times to handle new situations. Neccesity is the mother of all invention.

I don't mean to flame - but I think your idea is best suited for another game - not Galciv.



:p
Reply #6 Top
Could it be possible to have it both ways?

1. Have a victory condition that is to take the entire galaxy over, by force/diplomacy/stealth/etc.

or

2. A victory condition that is to form an alliance with x% of the know galaxy. But this can not be achieved through military might as the bigger you get the less likely other races would be inclined to ally with you.

Not sure if you can really have your cake and eat it too. :d

Toothy
Reply #7 Top
I don't think it's a dumb idea, but I do think that people shouldn't be forced to form alliances if they don't want to. I agree though that conquering the galaxy and maintaining your empire should become harder as you go along. I think Frogboy adressed this issue not long ago.
Reply #8 Top
I like the idea...one thing i always wanted to see in a game like this, is a living universe. There is no such thing as one empire ruling the others for ever. The Romans tried and finally failed. Nobody dared to fight them for centuries but in the end, the empire fall apart from within (mainly). And this is true for Mesopotamia, the Perse, the Egyptians and so much more. However there are always new empires, new countries rising after. Actually, i think that a very good strategy game should never end....
Reply #9 Top
I have no interest in "conquering the entire galaxy", I play for fun, to try to create a "perfect empire".. I agree with Lucian, the bigger an empire gets, the higher is the risk for a collapse, even through minor incidents. Just take a look at the Roman Empire.

I want a game to feel epic, not just "Lets take over everything", that is boring.
I want to feel with my civilization, feel that its my creation, not just something I have been put in charge of.
Im not sure if GalCiv is the game for this or not, but if it is we will soon find out. If not, then the search continues...
Reply #10 Top
Galciv is so far one of the best at being what you describe...except the one thing I don't particularly like is the games ends when you reach one of the goals...I believe and wish it would mark the accomplishment, then ask if you'd like to continue playing or quit then. One of my BEST games was this last one...and at first I was thinking that it was going to be over quickly, for me anyway. The Altarians, with their holier than thou attitude, declared war on me very early and I had started off the game thinking I was going to try and base my empire on trade and commerce, so I was not at all ready for a war. And for the longest time GNN kept saying that the war was going poorly and that they were slowly grinding me down. But I finally exterminated them! They never once talked with me again after their initial declaration of war...even when they were down to one planet. 2 nights in a row I went to bed very late because I was so caught up in the game. When the game ended several months after my victory, I was ready for it to end, but usually I reach a conclusion to it before I am actually ready. I'd like a choice. :)
Reply #11 Top
'There is no such thing as one empire ruling the others for ever. The Romans tried and finally failed.'

Yes, Rome failed to conquer the world. But keep in mind that there are nations around now that cover as much, if not more, territory than the Holy Roman Empire did. As much of the problem may have been how it happened, than that it didn't happen.
Reply #12 Top
Yes they cover the same or perhaps more of the territory that the romans did, but then you must keep in mind that this was a time without our modern ways of communication, thew roman empirse also consisted of alot more cultures and "races" then for example Russia today. And according to the romans they HAD almost conquered all of the world, at least the world as they saw it.
The roman empire fell, and its size was an significant reason, it was not the only reason but it was a reason. I should know this because I have a masters degree (Uppsala Univeristy in Sweden) in archaeology and ancient history.
Another reason for the collapse, actually it was divided into east and west rome, was religion, when the empire divided the western part was catholic and the eastern part was ortodox, and the church had quite alot of power over the state.
An empire cannot grow to any size, at one point it just gets to large and it cannot stay stable.

And just a state of facts, the "Roman Empire" and "The Holy Roman Empire" is two entirely diffrent things, first they are seperated by about 800 years. The Roman Empire had its centre in Rome and the Holy Roman Empire was an attempt by Barbarossa, a germanic king, to recreate the Roman empire from the divided West Rome.

If it is this hard to keep and empire together here on earth, just imagin how hard it would be in the vastness of space.
Reply #13 Top
I definitely agree that larger empires should be more difficult to control using starting ideas of government and starting technologies. I do feel that as the need appears then new technologies and forms of government should arise. Galciv does handle this by allowing for new forms of government to be researched, though primarily for economic reasons and they lessen stability.

Maybe a later version of Galciv could have some extra government types which increase stability, but at a cost (possibly economic, possible research, possibly production).

Hence a smller empire could be ruled by one form of government giving maximum productivity where as a larger empire needs extra management function to maintain stability and hence productivity is lower.

Paul.
Reply #14 Top
It's not impossible, though. Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series comes to mind. A galaxy wide empire, for a while at least. Eventually it would fall apart.. but meanwhile, we won the game. *grin*
Reply #15 Top
I'd like to second the idea of (and request for) having an prompt to continue play even when a victory condition is reached by either myself or a computer player.

Thanks - Don
Reply #16 Top
I still don't understand why anyone would want to keep playing after winning, or especially after loosing. If you won, you have all of the planets in the galaxy and all of the challange is gone. It becomes boring. If you lost, you have no planets, no ships, nothing, and there is absolutely nothing you could do.
Reply #17 Top
Ah... I was unclear.

I think your post speaks solely about "sole survivor" types of victory conditions. In such games I too see little point in continuing.

My understanding is that Galciv offers other paths to victory. So... you could "win" or "lose" the game - while still having powerful enemies in the galaxy.

As a (somewhat) hypothetical example, I "win" a cultural victory - even though several Terror stars (or Panzers in Civ3, whatever) are closing in on my under defended my capital. Had the game continued after my "so called (cultural/technical/etc) victory" I might have very well lost my capital. You think awe of my cultural heritage will deter dozens of squadrons with lost relatives to revenge? I think not.

Personally, I prefer to let the AI's win by any route possible - but usually limit myself to a "sole survivor" type of victory. "Victory" when I might be defeated in a few turns... is a very hollow type of victory indeed.

Please note that this is my experience with *other* games. I have yet to play galciv - and perhaps it's "non sole survivor" victories are so overwhelming that my enemies would forgive my many war atrocities. Sweet, sweet, stellar converter (or whatever).

Thanks - Don
Reply #18 Top
Not a bad idea making an empire more fragile the bigger it gets, but I still want to be able to conquer the whole galaxy.

This may seem like an odd idea, but the thing I'd most like to see in a 4x game is a royal family. Since you are the emperor anyway, why not have a character that you give a name to and that person is the emperor. As time passes, he/she will die and one of their children will take the throne. It's kind of like in the Total War games only I like the version of the royal families found in the old nintendo game Genghis Khan 2. In that game you'd have to spend time with family in order to have children and also to groom them to be good leaders. The emperor could have good statistics or bad, that would affect the empire. May be a crazy idea, but I loved Genghis Khan 2.
Reply #19 Top
There have been some GREAT ideas put forward in this thread! But it’s too bad that it was given such a strange name, so no one will read it.

The empire getting so big that internal stresses slowly tear it apart is an interesting idea. They would have to be modeled carefully and not like corruption in CIV3.

Looking back to the Roman Empire is a good idea, though why it collapsed is very complex and is still being debated. It is not just a matter of “it got too big”.

Some ideas:

1) Some form of cultural romanization over time of some races that you conquer (like the Romans did to the Gauls and Celts)

2) However some races are stubborn and just wont be assimilated and have a tendency to revolt. (Like the Roman province of Judea).

There is a senate with different political parties in the game. Are there fleet commanders in the game? If so,

3) Maybe a commander of one of your fleets could revolt if they are a different political persuasion then you and under certain conditions

The conditions would have make sense. So, a fleet commander might be more likely if the empire was large and growing stagnant than if it were small, a democracy and expanding in glory.

I know there are 4 types of government. I think a commander revolting and marching on the capital might happen with all 4 depending on the circumstances. After all, Sulla and Julius Caesar marched on Rome when it was a Republic. And everyone knows that in the 200s that Army Revolts happened with alarming frequency.


***If the revolt succeeds and takes the home world, you CONTINUE the game, but the rebel commander is now Emperor. If you were in a Republic or another type of government when the Revolt Occurred then the government type switches to Empire.***

(If you are played games in the mid 80s you might remember an Old Roman Empire simulation that had a similar concept… the name escapes me though.)

4) Nut-bar cults and religions that pop up and destabilize the Empire (a la Christianity destabilizing the Roman Empire). Of course, you should have a chance to stamp it out (like various Emperors tried to do), because like the DEVs have said no one likes to lose from a random event.


Sigh :(

This took me a long time too thought. It’s too bad that no one will probably read it. I would hope for some feedback.
Reply #20 Top
Did you guys know that in GalCiv sometimes your empire DOES split up? Did you know it was more likely to happen if you are an "evil" empire? Well, it does. I don't think it really as anything to do with how big you are, but I think that what you guys are asking for is basically already there...
Reply #21 Top
As for the Royal Family idea...
In Foundation the Emperor changed due to assassination more often than not. Every once in a while there would be military coups from sectors that wanted to install an emperor more favorable to themself. I think I should read that book again, to get ready for an empire building game. :P
Reply #22 Top
Asorokop,

Have you played Galciv yet? I have to wonder about some of your comments. So many are suggesting things that are already in the game, and so many are suggesting things that seem totally inappropriate for GcaCiv. Since you have obviously not yet played the game, perhaps looking at the documentation in the encyclopedia (see the button "encyclopedia" at the top of this forum) and reading the documents that discuss the phylosophy behind Galciv, and the ones that talk about the history behind the story line would benefit you.

"no one will read this"? Guess again. If Brad doesn't personally respond to your post I would have to say that is only because he is satisfied with the responses you get from us testers. (No, I do not work for SD. I paid for the game *and* the fun of being in the beta test program.)
Reply #23 Top
I've heard Brad say many times, "What impact did beta testers have? The BOX has a picture of a starbase on it. Starbases in GalCiv came from the beta testers, not me and now they're a central part of the game."
Reply #24 Top
To add to what jack said, a lot of what asorkop says is already in the game. Even the religious nutbar cult one.
Reply #25 Top
"The BOX has a picture of a starbase on it."

That just struck me as funny for some reason... that something the BETA testers came up with got on the box.