 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Galactic Civilizations II concept thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Maybe you could let the fans build some kind of incorporated GalCiv Encyclopedia. I think that during the beta it could be done, perhaps by using some kind of "wiki" as www.wikipedia.org
It has 2 advantages:
- Some help for players and BY players (I remember Civ3: it never had the info I wanted, but lots of things I could figure out by myself)
- Less on your shoulders
| |
|
|
|
I am concerned about the number of requests focusing on the military aspects - Ships/weapons etc. I do not want Civilizations becoming Galactic Warfare instead.
While I welcome the military improvements Brad has already suggested I would be even happier with, in no particular order, serveral things to improve variation and personal preferences:
Improvement of AI especially in order to cope with any new features and without bonuses. Also, Currently after "Intelligent" the AI gets bonuses which take big jumps I would like to see a slider or a %age improvement of key abilites(PlantetQ,speed,economic,moral etc) in order to be able to 'tweak' what additional bonuses different races get in a 'fine grained' way in order to increase the variation. This should not be hard to code as all the variables are already in the game.
I would like to see some non linear elements in the tech tree, perhaps as a combination of Race abilities, Alignment, random elements or events eg. Discovering new technology or due to Culture changes eg registirctions on BIO tech research etc. Basically just enough Non linear elements to ensure you want have the same tech route in your subsequent game to keep things interesting. You could for example vary just how much bonus you get from eg a cultural influence tech, it could have a base of +10 but vary + or - 5 depending on any factor you care to code.
I really like the idea of expanding the management of individual planets and their capabilities. I would like to see individual changes to planets as the games progress. Currently we have some changes as the Race heads to 'Star Democracy' I would like to see micro culture/bonus changes as time goes on. Eg Currently, on colinisation you get a random Pick eg Planet Quality Good/Bad, Starhip Bonus yes/no. Therefore I would like to see some ongoing options. So planet A may decide at some point to start using slaves to increase production,effecting its morality eg to 'Evil', leaving it open to attach from a 'Saintly' Race even if we are overall 'Good'. So you could get a message: 'Humans - The citizens of Plant A are a threat to our Society we have no choice but to exterminate them unless you hand over the planet or free all slaves(eg-30 prod, - 50 pop, - 10Moral). Also ONLY this Planet would be attacked unless we Retaliate from other planets...
[Message Edited]
         
| |
|
How about a more subtle kind of cultural influence that ties in with user-friendly's suggestions. Rather than the dull planetery takeover we have at current, how about we allow planets alignment (and favored political systems) to shift in response to planetery pressure.
Say Planet A in the example above is a human world of a "good" human civilization under cultural pressure from the Drengin. Taking inspiration from the Drengin, the world buys slaves and puts them to work in the fields and factories.
The distant government in Earth, sees this as an abomination and cracks down on the world, causing dissent among the world's population, dissent which will increase unless sufficiant human cultural defenses (propoganda highlighting the evils of slavery)
are put up. Alternitively the government can cave in, reducing the total moral position of the civilization toward evil.
If the human government fails to keep the planet from breaking away then a new human civilization, called the Slavedrivers is created. This civilization starts life as a Drengin protectorate and is also culturally assimilated (grants all it's planetery and starbase influence to the master civilization.
Civilizations can become culturally assimilated in game as soon as their homeworld comes under sufficiant cultural assimilation. This means all their planetery influence is granted to the assimilator civ (which can in turn lead to more worlds and civs being assimilated). This is the kind of cultural conquest I want to see in GalCiv II.
 
| |
|
#130
by Citizen Nyghtfyr - 11/12/2004 8:48:53 AM
Hey there. Glad to see GC2 being worked on. Here's my suggestion(s)...
You said 2D map in 3D engine. That's fine, but I still naively await the day when a strategy game brings in the z-axis to the strategic mix. You guys have been innovators...you can do it...maybe 
Information is the key to a strategy game, and presentation is key to making it possible for someone to stare at the computer for hours and hours. Back when I was still comparing MOO3 to GC (GC won), one of the advantages I gave MOO3 was its presentation of information. Those sliding tabs were slick, easy to use, and had good info in them. GC was far better because its engine and interface allowed the player more freedom, but I didn't always feel like I understood how my economy was working, how my bonuses played in, or where I stood in comparison to other empires. Give me graphs, charts, and a strategic map screen with trade routes, influence zones, fleet dispositions, all highlighted in different colors/icons. Make this map zoomable and rotatable. Unless, of course, the normal screen can be zoomed out into a strategic mode or something. I like what you're doing with cultural influence as a 3D entity creeping toward a planet.
How about planetary quirks or resources, a la MOO2 - 'ancient artifacts' or something? Nothing game-changing, but something more than just a difference in planetary rating or a moral dilemma resulting in 5% more production. Make the planets have more strategic importance, so that there are a set of space-bound resources for starbases to mine, and a set of planetside resources as well. This would force you to choose to focus your defenses on your starbases or your planets, or go all out and spend it all to fortify everything. Right now, losing a planet is certainly bad, but losing one 17 rated planet is no worse than losing another. This should change.
Another area I gave the edge to MOO3 in was diplomacy. GC's United Planets is certainly a good foundation, but I'd like to see something more robust, that can really take advantage of a boosted diplomatic ability, as well as some of the player's instincts. Maybe the ability to actually propose a proxy war? I.e., you attack and seize the following systems and I will give you the following items now and the following items upon completion of your goal, and have an option to reneg on your deal, probably causing the race you made the deal with to declare war, because hey, it's about having the option to make an ass of yourself. Also, please add the ability to propose bills at the UP, and to 'lock' up votes in negotiations beforehand (of course, they can always back out on you...)
   
| |
|
#131
by Citizen Jasamcarl - 11/12/2004 6:35:10 PM
There seems to be two schools here. One emphasizing gameplay and the other simulation. I'm firmly in the former category.
I would ask that new mechanics not be introduced in a vain attempt to simulate grandscale fine politics and the like (some of the cultural stuff suggested here sounds especially bad, no offense intended), especially if it adds too much randomality to the game, versus genuine strategy.
If new mechanics help the gameplay while also pumping up the versimilitude, AND the ai can handle it, fine, and that sounds like what you're doing.
I wouldn't want to see GC become Crusader Kings, where the developers and community focus on historically improbably scenarios in their patches as oppossed to the wet blanket AI.
 
| |
|
Some things I'd like to see:
1. You can scroll through the tech tree and get info on what every single tech does - but not on what any of the ships, improvements or starbase modules do. In Alpha Centauri you can display a tech and the screen will display everything the tech allows to be built just like GalCiv - PLUS you can click on the name of the thing that can be built and get info on what it does (and what tech is required to build it).
2. The ability to determine the allocation of ship/improvement/research points on every individual planet. The current allocation method will be kept, and each planet will default to the overall settings unless manually changed. For instance, I set the overall balance to 30% ships, 30% improvements, and 40% research. But planet Zod can't build any more improvements, so I set it to 50/0/50. And that planet with all the research bonuses gets set to 0/0/100.
      
| |
|
Of course, the database will have info not on ships but on hull types, weapons, etc.
| |
|
From GalCiv's random events, I lurned one thing (which you should push further):
It's actually great to get examples of what we do.
Use this for spying to start with:
When we spy or do some intelligence moves, sometimes give a report of something we do. Here are some examples:
*Top Secret crypted message*
You succeeded so well that even a Drengin minister was in fact
funded, by local business-oriented proxies that you support.
*Top Secret crypted message*
Your funding of opposite radical groups within the Drengin empire has leaded the empire to be in very hot and negatively twisted debates. It is believed that it may lead to hard to reconcile opponents. The old "Divide to rule" is still as good as it was.
It's in the news!
Your move to support local insurrencies has been detected... and the Yor do not appreciate this!
*Top Secret crypted message*
Your support to groups that support groups that support groups that... supports the National Violent Uprising Clan is effective, and a minister recently got killed.
*Top Secret crypted message*
Your support of certain Yor medias is undermined by your lack of funds in front of the Yor's news "supported" by the state.
Of course, it would be even better if included in a comprehensive spying system (with more than GC).
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
| |
|
#135
by Citizen Mainboard - 11/15/2004 4:09:50 AM
I don't post much, mainly because I have tons of other things to do. But I was updating my Stardock and GalCiv from last year and lo and behold GalCiv 2 is being talked about.
I will make one suggestion, Multiplayer.
My friends and I loved GalCiv but found that playing it by ourselves was not that fun. We play MP games all of the time and rarely want to do single player games. I would love to spend several weeks playing against my buddies and we all agree that GalCiv 2 deserves multiplayer. So that is my one suggestion. I will still buy GalCiv 2 but I doubt anyone else I know will if there is no multiplayer. Not trying to be negative, just speaking my peace.
 
| |
|
#136
by Citizen grohyt - 11/17/2004 6:44:35 AM
ok few ideas
1. when you have the planet meeting things, there should be a bit more realism, maybe if you are at warwith someone they won't turn up, also release who voted for you and you should have a chance to get voted as leader and choose what topics to choose from.
2 when doing planetary invasion, maybe we get to see the actual invasion, maybe a movie or somthing and have the chance to retreat if where loosing
3.have differn't things in space that can mean danger, e.g blacks holes etc
4.maybe just maybe, the planet is a certain type of gas, and you can't land on some because you can't servive in the enviroment
maybe more later 
| |
|
#137
by Citizen Sakarja - 11/18/2004 4:47:16 PM
I'd like to see more a more immersive story in the campaign.. with interesting characters, plot twists and so on. The altarian prophecy campaign is good but the fact that the story is only in text hurts it. At the very least, at least the story could be advanced inside the missions as well, not just before and after missions. Warcraft 3 is a good example of how a story can be done well. Allthough it would be more difficult in a game of this scale.
Another thing that bothered me in Galciv was the political parties. I feel they detract from the uniqueness of the races. In MOO the Darloks were good spies, Psilons had good tech, Sakkras could have a lot more population, and so on. But in Galciv any race can just choose to be Technologists, War Party, Federalists and so on and so the difference is not so much between races as it is between parties. So no political parties for Galciv 2. Instead, the player can determine policy by concentrating on tech improvements, military improvements, and so on, just like now, only no political parties.
This is especially necessary if you make races other than humans playable. Political parties was simply a way to make up for not having other playable races anyway, so there will then be no need for them, they will only detract from the game.
Also, multiplayer is a must, Metaverse is not enough.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
#139 by Citizen Ozar - 11/23/2004 8:01:22 PM
PLEASE let there be an On/Off switch for waypoints |
|
What I really would like to see is movable rally points. This would be a great improvement! This would make a lot of micro management obsolete. Just move your waypoint and all assigned ships automitically redirect themselves to the new target 
  
| |
|
#141
by Citizen Jor Dariem - 11/25/2004 4:09:58 PM
i worry about the fleet idea, having limited fleet size dependant upon tech level. seems that a civ (a.i. or human) could just be the first to reach a specific fleet size then just wipe everything else out since noone else is allowed to have anything that size. seems it would only encourage the "super-fleet" problem that everyone dreads since there is NO way to counter it with that setup.
i guess my question is what recourse will players have if they don't want to take the military route?
| |
|
If it is less "territory=victory", the game will become more strategic (since you can use more pathways to victory). Just as Japan, little island, succeeded into getting a good strategy to become a powerful state. If Japan, with little natural ressources, did it...
I think it has to do with a few factors, with perhaps some could make it in GC2, such as:
- A powerful one strategically supporting a little one (Israel vs USA)
- While there exist parasitic relations, symbiotic relations also exist in nature as economy. Business, research...
- Bigger territories carry disadvantages (More planets, more different views, more potential disagreements. Good/bad logistics for cohesion: Look at German vs Italian (Mussolini) empires; Organization mattered)
- Your bigger? It's a Risk game, so wait for others to make you smaller.
- You're bigger? It may mean that you'll enter into competition, espescially with big ones (ex: Rome vs. Carthage)
Some of this is at least partially in GalCiv, and it shows comparatively to some other games. A good example of game that integrated well another element, territory, is Spartan (they're now making Legion II): the game is awesome while user-friendly.
Since not everyone sees this, maybe advisors could give examples, propose... I don't know.
[Message Edited]
| |
|
Hey,
I think I have found a frist screenshot of GalCiv2. I like the picture! :
 Link
[Message Edited]
| |
|
#144
by Citizen Chippoka - 12/2/2004 6:17:45 AM
And being able to zoom in or out on the main galaxy screen (if not mentioned yet) as on the mini map.
And as in MOO2 (sorry to refer to it, but it has, and still does have, the best user friendly interface for selection and management of game elements)... have a tabular interface which lists all the planets where on each planet line is listed current projects and other data; the player being able to select items for changes directly or being taken directly to the appropriate game screen or menu. Since MOO2, CG and AP have one of the better user interface designs, but it still needs a more comprehensive single listing which allows the player to see all planets (with sort abilities) and data at a glace for comparative analysis and changes.
| |
|
Puppet regimes are of tremendous importance, espescially when it comes to conquer, colonize, or having an imperialist policy.
I believe in a basic "puppet regime" system. For example, if you instaure a puppet regime in a conquered city, it will:
- Have a lower unrest than a blatantly conquered city
- A part of its production will you to your metropolis (other cities)
- A part of its production will go to its formal owner (in form of money, etc.)
The potentiality of unrest will slowly diminish if you maintain a calm situation and give what the inhabitants want.
I read that one of Paradox' games (Victoria: Link) has puppet regimes, but I never played it. I guess there are many ways of doing it, and lots to explore on the issue.
| |
|
There is long term investment, infrastructure, making people happy. And there are ways to exploit, shorter term style.
This is useful if you wish to basically PLUNDER a planet you just conquered and expect the enemy to take back shortly. Or if you need fast results. Or are just evil *evil grin*
Possible short term actions:
- Plunder
- Everyone WORK WORK WORK
- Who cares if it destroys/kills/brings moral down. It produces
- Police state rules. And it brings everyone to do what I want NOW.
This long term vs short term thing has deep strategic implications, evil/good implications, and is just more fun in the can. Random events bring a little of it, it could be an always present option (plunder conquered world for example: a little, seriously, completely...).
| |
|
#143 by Citizen GalCivCobra - 12/2/2004 5:11:59 AM
Hey, I think I have found a frist screenshot of GalCiv2. I like the picture!
: Link
[Message Edited]
|
|
If this screenshot is really what the game is going to be like then i think Stardock has SERIOUSLY misunderstood what we as a fanbase have requested in relation to the "planets and such being part of a sector" question.
We didnt want this. This looks entirely stupid based upon the fact that a sector square is several million miles in size (a cubic light year i think?) and NO star system in this universe is that large - at least not to human knowledge.
The only way I would see this working is if a "sector" was shrunk to the size of a star system size (thereby shortening the time to cross it and the distances between star, planets, and other spatial bodies in system) or if you scrap this idea entirely and go with what I read as the fans wish for the game in relation to the "star system" question.
That is having a star on the map as a star and then double clicking on it "zooms" into a 3d close up view of the system from which u can double click the planet to either zoom in for a close up view of that ala Imperium Galactica 1/2 or bring up a "pop-uP" window displaying all the information and the build queues (sp?), etc...
If it is kept like this then I dont see the game doing too well based upon the simple fact that having planets and stars so far apart (a quarter of a light year say) is so unrealistic that it will turn off ppl from playing it.
Am I the only one who has noticed this? Am I the only one who cares that looks immensely idiotic and looks like it will be a HUGE mistake which will damage GC2 sales? As far as I can see there is only one other person who seems to have mentioned anything remotely related to this fact?
Also I feel like im the one who is always pointing out flaws and critisising GC/GC2 ideas...but its only because I really liked GalCiv (my only gripe was that it wasnt immersive enough but I am told Altarian Prophecy fixed that) and I want for GC2 to be the BEST 4X in Space game EVER - I want it to beat MOO and MOO2 (and of course Bhurics patch for MOO3 which has improved it immensely) - and I feel that this misunderstanding may damage GC2...
[Message Edited]
| |
|
#148
by Citizen IAMJME - 12/6/2004 2:42:55 PM
| I am concerned about the number of requests focusing on the military aspects - Ships/weapons etc. I do not want Civilizations becoming Galactic Warfare instead. |
|
I too am becoming concerned with the amount of extra features (units, abilities and such) that are being requested. i think many of these updates should be optional and like the many updates found on this site through the library.
  
| |
|
Hmm. I thought that image was a sort of starsystem view. But now I see that the it does not seem to be so. Just as angelscotboi, I don't like to see a GC2 where planets are floating free in the galaxy. What I would like to se is planets and astereoid-fields orbiting stars. On a galactic scale planets are to small to be noticed, even stars are minescule, only gas-clouds and star-systems have any significant extent.
So what's the difference between orbiting planets and astereoids, and the system in GC? Not much. Most of what I'd like to be able to do with planets can be done with static planets.
In GC planets are just a piece of a star system. If the planets were treated as planets it would be possible to invade, single planets in a system, mount attacks on planetary instalations, plant listening devices on moons and astereoids, etc. etc. Furthermore intra-system migration could be moddled, so that people would move to where they percieve their chances for a good life to be greatest.
Finally in-system star-bases could be implemented. I have always disliked the fact that GC has only deep-space bases. In my oppinion deep-space bases should not influence planets directly, but rather be strategic, and/or mine strategic resources.
 
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
