OT, galactic civ II

[alexti]

NTJedi said:

I could be wrong but I'm sure by visiting the CIV, AOW or NWN forums I could easily find lots of gamers which disagree.

Everything is relative. There're always people claiming all kind of things. But people who play MP in games like Civ or AOW have never played Dominions, so they have nothing to compare with and don't really know what good MP can be like. Just read strategy section in Civ4 forums and check what MP strategies are being discussed...

NTJedi said:
Also from what I've seen of GAL_CIV_2 this game appears to have lots of strategic depth. Not sure why you see this lacking/missing.

Well, I just can't find it. Every civ plays pretty much the same. You research same techs and trade like crazy. Combat have no options. So it's pretty much typical exponential TBS. The main thing which sets it apart is a good AI.

NTJedi said:

It's not two great games... as mentioned earlier GAL_CIV_2 already has an unusual hotseat mode available and working. Behold the miracle already exists, just needs to be made more user friendly and providing MP with optional balanced starts.

There won't be much fun playing MP the way the game is structured right now. It's same thing as Civ4 - a lot of turns, a lot of micromanagement and very few decisions.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im not saying that it cant be done. Nor that it shouldnt be done. Im just commenting that its not as simple to do as its been made out to be. Its extremely rare that any game can achieve more than being great at one of them and the other tacked on. And often, the effort simply ends up degrading them both.

[cjx]

RonD said:
Maybe that makes me a "bumbler", but I really cannot think of any SP TBS games (discounting chess, etc) that cannot be beat by exploiting AI weaknesses.

If the AI had no weakness there would be no beating it would there? Some things you consider cheese, some you don't, but all in all winning a single player game is about finding and exploiting AI weaknesses (or could be conversely considered finding and exploiting your own strengths).

My problem with GalCiv2 is that it seemed like there was a multitude of strategies that the computer just couldn't cope with so it wasn't about choosing not to "cheese" it; you could only choose to cripple yourself or put your head in the sand OR crush the AI. In addition to that there is no multiplayer so there is little reason to continue to improve yourself and/or develop new strategies. In addition to that the Metaverse (aka high score list) was undocumented and arbitrary in its scoring; you will always score higher with a military victory AND (this is a rumor I have not confirmed) you will gain more points in a game that goes past 10 years everytime, no bonus for finishing early with a great strat.

I liked the atmosphere of the game. I liked their distribution model/copy protection scheme (or lack there of). I appreciate that they were releasing updates very frequently... though it would be nice if a lot of those issues were addressed BEFORE release.

I don't know. It drives me nuts because I think I like the game despite everything, but I can't bring myself to play it for all the frustratingly bad things that seem to get revealed daily.

This is getting long, but... well, let's just keep going Dom2 players have a higher than average attention span I think.

NTJedi said:
Also from what I've seen of GAL_CIV_2 this game appears to have lots of strategic depth. Not sure why you see this lacking/missing.

I have to disagree. The opening of the game does not allow any military rush so there is only one thing to do at the start of the game: Land rush, Econ/Tech. Then build small ships with high firepower and blitz nearest most vulnerable AI, repeat. If you allow games to go longer/go different, that's your CHOICE and nothing else.

Oh, and yes, the randomly generated universe/nation placement is REALLY bad. I mean, I don't mind it sometimes, but more often I'd like to pick different set ups like Civ4 allows. Maybe a Land rush: all nations start horizontally situated and rush outwards, Ring: all nations start on the outer boarders and rush inwards, Core: all nations start centrally located and rush outwards, Balanced: all nations start at maximum distance from eachother and have an equal amount of resource near them (though not necessarily the same kinds of resources).

I firmly believe multiplayer was not included in this game because multiplayer highlights exploits (the -2000 max debt "feature" exploit) and weaknesses much faster and much more harshly.

cjx

[alexti]

Gandalf Parker said:
Im not saying that it cant be done. Nor that it shouldnt be done. Im just commenting that its not as simple to do as its been made out to be.

I totally agree with you. And because of those mentioned difficulties I don't expect it to be done.

[shovah]

agrees with alexti

[alexti]

cjx said:
I liked the atmosphere of the game. I liked their distribution model/copy protection scheme (or lack there of). I appreciate that they were releasing updates very frequently... though it would be nice if a lot of those issues were addressed BEFORE release.

I don't know. It drives me nuts because I think I like the game despite everything, but I can't bring myself to play it for all the frustratingly bad things that seem to get revealed daily.

I feel the same way. Good news is that Brad is promising to add "no tech trading" option which I think should make things more interesting in term of variety (and I hope it won't make things harder for AI).

[Cainehill]

Yeah - no tech trading, also, an option for the spheres of influence to not be known, making for rather a more interesting game - if the AI also doesn't know the sphere of influence then, and, mmm, one other gameplay affecting option is coming soon.

[Saber Cherry]

alexti said:
Good news is that Brad is promising to add "no tech trading" option which I think should make things more interesting in term of variety (and I hope it won't make things harder for AI).

Unless he majorly changes the way the AI handles ship design and planet organization, "no tech trading" may well destroy the AI. AI improvements are lists, and he's responded to threads complaining about AI planet building choices and ship design, so hopefully they'll be improved.

[alexti]

Saber Cherry said:

Unless he majorly changes the way the AI handles ship design and planet organization, "no tech trading" may well destroy the AI. AI improvements are lists, and he's responded to threads complaining about AI planet building choices and ship design, so hopefully they'll be improved.

I think I remember Brad saying that AI is not programmed to particular rules and should be able to deal with different rules. Though the keyword here is *should* I suppose

[NTJedi]

Cainehill said:
Let me point out : Civ series : fraking simplistic combat and IMO a pretty boring SP game, plus basically mediocre MP game, in the ones that support MP.

The combat is basic, but the rest of your statement is probably wrong considering that the overall review of 'all the gamers' is a rating of 9 out of 10... not the website reviewers... all the gamers. I will eventually get the game myself.

Cainehill said:
NWN : Um??? RPG! Totally different genre - a lot easier making an rpg SP or MP by simply increasing difficulty.

I've played lots of RPG games and it takes more than simply increasing difficulty. The point is even tho this is a different genre it is equally great for both singleplayer and multiplayer because thousands of worlds of all types are available for download. Eventually this day will arrive for a TBS game too.

Cainehill said:
AoW : If that's the RTS by microsoft, isn't it pretty darn simplistic, lending to SP or MP? I'm not saying GalCiv2 has the depth of Dom2 - but it has a lot more than most RTS games.

Wrong... it is not Microsoft. AgeofWonders:ShadowMagic.TBS In fact the gamers active on this forum are the multiplayer gamers because computer AI in a solo game are pretty boring once the weaknesses are discovered. Human players learn from their weaknesses and always search for new strategies of attack where a computer AI will follow the same and eventually predictable script.

Cainehill said:
And let's not forget the example of Dom2 .... (Both the non-existent AI, and the cheezy cheats make it unplayable, or at least non-enjoyable, as a SPS game, imo.)

Adjusting the .map file, using the game tool from The Paladin, or the randomly generated maps with extra stuff from Gandalf definitely has worked for me continuing playing DOM_2 games solo. Also I don't use spells the computer doesn't use such as GhostRiders, FlamesfromtheSky, etc., .


-----------------
AI weaknesses from GAL_CIV_2 have already been discovered and more will surface making it also unplayable eventually... even sooner considering the game has no editor. Overall adding multiplayer will greatly increase the replay value and members of its community.