What, do you play on difficulty settings far below your abilities? Some of us like a challenge, and that challenge is seeing how well we can do (with the difficulty cranked as high as we can handle) without the use of exploits or other such. Half decent tactical combat would render the entire game easy unless done superbly, which
Give it up, misophist, most people don't want tactical (be it in this thread or in the poll) and that's the one fact even you can't refute. It's like with multiplayer: A very few loud people lobbying for their own interest without real backing by the (huge) majority. I'm glad Stardock didn't fall for it wrt multiplayer and I tru
A real commander would see that tactical command should be left to the under castes. Strategic placement of forces to support and empower tactical commands are all that is necessary to ensure a positive outcome and freedom of our race. A true emperor would be interested only in enjoying the pleasues o
What the proponents of Tactical seem to keep skipping over is the fact that: 1) Human players will learn how to always win at Tactical combat or at the very least greatly enhance their ability over the AI. 2) As you will always have a much better chance to win by playing through Tactical, you will always use Tacti
Your arguments have degenerated to nitpicking points which are not relevant to the discussion of tactical combat. I've stated what I want and you've not come up with any valid reasons as to how that would not enhance the game. Your viewpoint is based on the flawed premise that any tactical combat would be a cakewalk and that since you have no self restraint you'd take the "easy" route everytime. The discussion on staffing at Stardock is irrelevant.
Yes to ranged tactical combat similar to Fallout combat system with ability to control ships singly or grouped together. Include a quick resolve option for those wishing to forgo tactical combat.
That's not the issue, and if you'd read what I'm saying, you'd understand that. I don't want to feel pressured into playing tactical combat to optimize my game play, and if the tactical AI isn't up to snuff, that's exactly what will happen. No, this is the first time you've said that you'd feel pressu
Well, personnaly, having played MOO, MOO2, MOM, HOMM 2, 3 and 4, I rarely used the quick resolve/auto battle since I knew I can do a better job than the tactical AI on these games. So if tactical battles appear in any GC, I perfectly knew that I will play the tactical battle since I knew it will raise the odds to crush the AI and
Multiplayer is a popular choice for these resources. Also, the strategic AI could be even further refined (because that is actually a somewhat attainable goal). If I had a say, I would want there to be a more detailed method for planetary assault. I'm sure there are so many possibilities that wouldn't dramatically alter the game
Can't take this "discussion" serious anymore. Tactical combat isn't in the game, for good reasons, and it will almost sure never be in. If some people don't get this point - having played the game not even a single time - then so be it. Actually I played quite a bit of GalCiv1. It got boring quickly
How about we include "tactical" combat, but limit it to what the game mechanics currently allow? The AI still attacks the ships it normally would, but the human can choose which enemy ship to attack with each shot. That would be simple enough that someone who does it manually wouldn't have any advantage over someone who leaves it
Some of us are anal enough to do that even if it's not fun because we want every non-exploit advantage we can get. It's our play style. And don't try to argue that somehow yours is more pure. Noone's play style is more pure (arguably excluding exploit-driven play styles). I never said your play style
What handwaving claims? As I already pointed out, you named examples that weren't modern and in one case just plain wrong. It doesn't happen in the modern age, and there's no reason to expect it to change in the future. In fact, even less so, unless we have some form of broadband instantaneous communication at interstellar range.
There's also another thing to consider say you have 30+ battles to fight a turn, thats a hella lot of time between turns. Agreed. That's when the quick resolve button comes in handy. You only control the battles you feel like controlling.
[quoteFrom 4x space games to RPG, talk about apples and oranges. But I'll bite anyway. So essentially, you're backing off your handwaving claims that the leader of an empire wouldn't be down directing individual ships and that having tactical combat wouldn't fit into the strategic focus of the game? I want to see you bite on how the leader of an empire would stoop down to designing military vehicles. Like I said before, sorta on par with t
GalCiv II weapons don't have a range component. Therefore, tactical combat in the way you're thinking ala MOO is meaningless. I can't think of any scenario where you would want to control the units in GalCiv in combat because the strategy is so straightforward -- eliminate the unit that represents the biggest threat t
Two words that make all the difference between MOO tactical combat and GalCiv's combat system: Weapon range. Hmm...what does that mean? Since you're reading this thread, Brad, please keep an open mind on tactical combat. If anyone can do it, it's you and Stardock. My faith in your work is wha
My points: 2) An AI that can effectively deal with the complex variables of tactical combat as implemented like MoO 2 hasn't reached the consumers yet. Your response: "Sure, it may be difficult to develop a viable tactical AI..." Please understand the scope of this: the developers aren't completely happy wit
o, I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Please read my posts again, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I did read what you wrote and refuted your relevant points. <TD class="mb-Body-Qu
As for misophists statement that because there are resources a leader could choose to harvest that they should be able to control individual ships, that is ridiculous. That arguement doesnt make any sense. It isnt abstract at all to say that there could be some resources to harvest that could give an advantage. <
Frankly, given the relative simplicity of GC2 combat, you're either going to have a form of combat that would bore you to tears (just choosing which of your ships shoots at which of theirs), or you wind up doing a whole different combat model involving ship speed, weapons ranges, possibly even firing arcs, at which point you now
I don't understand why anyone is arguing against inclusion of user controlled tactical combat in an expansion pack. Those who want to fight tactical battles can do so and those who want to just watch the computer fight can do that. The computer controlled version of tactical battles is complete and done already.
Stardock Forums