GalCiv2 Expansion

[Warshed]

The one thing I like about GC2, which SE4 or 5 won't have is wonders. I really wish SE5 would have something equivalent to wonders, even if it is a building that every race could only build once, and if it gets destroyed you could never rebuild it. What I find with SE4 and probobly with SE5 is that planets really don't distinguish themselves as being something unique or special. If it was a planet that had a very unique building on it or some rare mineral that improves the whole empire (like resources in Civ 4), then one would feel like that planet is really special.

What would also be cool is to have super giant planets that are ultra-rare but could fit like 40-50 buildings on them, so that when you lost them, it would be a large blow to your empire.

[Yimboli]

Aside from wonders, planets in galciv2 seem to be lend themselves more distinctly to specific functions. I can't quite narrow down what makes me feel that way. Maybe it's simply because in gc2 you have fewer planets, so it's easier to keep track of their individualities.

In se4, there were the resource percentages which determined, at least in my case, whether the world was going to be mineral organic radioactive or research. there were also ruins, which only made the planet a higher priority to colonize - this little bit of individuality was lost once the ruins were discovered. Also, in some mods, bigger planets are your best space yards due to the higher population.


In gc2, you have specials in the different facility sites on the planet, so if I get a planet that has a 700% bonus to production in a square, I know that's going to be a production powerhouse... similarly, a planet with lotsa farm boosters can have a high population so I'm going to build economic boosters to increase tax revenue.


Typing it out has helped me think through it- I think gc2 has slightly more planet individuality, which is amplified by the fact that my games have always been on a smaller scale and with fewer planets than in se4...

any thoughts?

[Suicide Junkie]

Although I have no objections to allowing wonders, I personally think they're silly.

If you can build it once, obviously you can do it again.
If I can build mine while you're still building yours, clearly I can do it after you finish yours too.
Artificial scarcity, pfft!

What I would enjoy seeing is a system where if you build it, you get an advantage. If someone else builds one too, then they cancel each other out until you go on a napalm crusade and reduce the number of them in the galaxy to just one again.

And of course, the ones you DO make would need to be logical. Not like Civ's Hoover Dam, for example.

[Renegade 13]

Warshed said:
What would also be cool is to have super giant planets that are ultra-rare but could fit like 40-50 buildings on them, so that when you lost them, it would be a large blow to your empire.

That'd be easy to do with SEIV! All you'd have to do is create a new entry in PlanetSize.txt, add another couple entries in SectType.txt, then since you want them to be scarce, only put a few entries for your new planet into SystemTypes.txt.

EDIT: I wonder how AI's would deal with planets with that many extra facility spots...hmm...

[Kana]

Caduceus said:
I have downloaded the Demo and I still can't stand the movement set-up of GC2. I like to know how long things will take to get somewhere... Maybe its just me.

I believe this has already been patched...

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Warshed said:What would also be cool is to have super giant planets that are ultra-rare but could fit like 40-50 buildings on them, so that when you lost them, it would be a large blow to your empire.

One word: Sphereworlds.

Building a Sphereworld takes up a lot of time and resources. Losing it would mean a very serious blow to your economy, especially if the enemy actually captures it, especially if you've just finished building it up to its full capacity..... owch.

[Fyron]

Suicide Junkie said:
Although I have no objections to allowing wonders, I personally think they're silly.

That's just cause you look at them entirely wrongly.

EDIT: I wonder how AI's would deal with planets with that many extra facility spots...hmm...

Fill them up with that 200 catchall type most use in their Construction_Facilities files, then possibly nothing if you have even more slots than that.

[Nats]

Well as a player of both games I want to balance the opinion here which is one sided at the moment obviously becuase this is a Space Empires board.

The fact is that SE4 and GC2 are completely different games.

SE4 is more of a detailed blow by blow simulation with lots of micromanagment and flexibility to allow everyone to play the game in loads of differnet ways. GC2 however is more of a strategy game in that you decide the bigger picture. Yes you develop colonies and fleets but once you make a decision there is no need to keep going bcak to remake it, and once you enter a battle the outcome is automatically decided. So you are left to concentrate on controlling the heading of the war or the development of your civilisation rather than concentrating on the individual battles.

The GC2 forum has had people incl me! asking for items to be added that are in SE4 this is true. But this would not necessarily be a good thing, and the jury is out. Perhaps the best way to enjoy GC2 is to go with the flow, enjoy the relaxed decision making in the game, and enjoy truly directing a civilisation, rather than being the second in command and having to do everything yourself.

One only has to compare the ship battles in GC2, which are done automatically for you, to those in SE4 which take ages of plodding around, to appreciate the differences between the games. Sometimes 'less is more' and in this case I can see the Space EMpires games becoming so feature intensive that they become more of a chore to play than a pleasure. In SE4 you seem to spend more time moving your ships from square to square than in actually fun gameplay. Whereas GC2 never bogs you down with that kind of mundane detail.

That said I will be very interested to see what SE5 is like. I did like SE4, played it for quite a while, but I did get fed up trying to get anywhere in the game. With GC2 I havent played it enough to really say which type of game I prefer just yet. I like both and they both have advantages over the other. Maybe I'll just enjoy playing both depending on my mood at the time!

Nats

[Suicide Junkie]

Battles in SE4 do not take any plodding around at all.

They sometimes take an hour of CPU grinding on the server in the closet, but that is simply your chance to go to the bathroom, make some coffee, eat dinner, or play other SE4 turns.

Strategic combat.
Simultaneous turn games.
MULTIPLAYER on PBW.
This is the way to play SE4

Tactical combat is a pretty fun minigame in itself, but is not what the game is all about.

Multiplayer is where things get really serious. You have to really refine your ship strategies and designs, and organize your fleets' movement to pull off successful pincer attacks against superior numbers and tonnage.
http://imagemodserver.mine.nu/other/...Tudran2_02.jpg

From your post, it sounds like you would really love simultaneous turn games, once you get over the design strategy screen's learning curve.

[Nats]

Suicide Junkie said:
Battles in SE4 do not take any plodding around at all.

They sometimes take an hour of CPU grinding on the server in the closet, but that is simply your chance to go to the bathroom, make some coffee, eat dinner, or play other SE4 turns.

Strategic combat.
Simultaneous turn games.
MULTIPLAYER on PBW.
This is the way to play SE4

Tactical combat is a pretty fun minigame in itself, but is not what the game is all about

If I wanted to play a board type game I wouldnt be playing a computer game. I play a computer game to have interesting effects that pull me into the game. Ive never really understood people who play pure hex wargames on computers. Same as Ive never understood the people who play games like Rome Total War without the 3d battle sequences. But each to their own.

All I was trying to get across is that SE4 is too much like trying to be all things to all people and providing every single way to play a game but doing none of them particularly well, the tactical battles being particularly badly implemented (for example whats the point in having mines on my ships if I cant lay a minefield?). It looks like this is going to also be the same for SE5 (see my other post about ugly screen shots).

Whereas GC2 defines exactly how the game is to be played and then does it very well. It removes the micromanagement and repeatability of tasks to leave the player able to concentrate on the decision making and is more fun because of it. And yet viewing the battles is quite interesting and you never feel like you want to step in and take over. A few tactical options before the units go to battle would be nice though.

Nats