Galactic Civilizations III

[Destroid]

Wait, I thought GalCiv 3 was going to have actual tactical combat?

There are threads about this on their forums, but I never saw the devs commenting on it. Their fanbase does the commenting for them. "When will people learn GalCiv is not fucking Total War?!" was a recurring answer. These people consider controlling your ships in battle a form of dumbing the game down.

Seems to me like the fans wanted a GalCiv 2 with updated graphics, and they received just that.

EDIT: let's just say a friend of mine from Somalia Tonga Costa Rica was kind enough to lend me his copy. Will write about the game sometime next week. Maybe.

That's a reasonable enough position, but it really feels dumb to have detailed ship design without tactical combats.

 

[Zarniwoop]

So, the Kodex Konsensus is that this sucks? I read somewhere each race has its own tech tree this time but have they at least made it something reasonable? Or is it still the good old Bigass Laser -> Bigass Laser MKII - > Bigass Laser MKIII shit?

 

[Hobo Elf]

So, the Kodex Konsensus is that this sucks? I read somewhere each race has its own tech tree this time but have they at least made it something reasonable? Or is it still the good old Bigass Laser -> Bigass Laser MKII - > Bigass Laser MKIII shit?

That's exactly what it's like. Dunno if the tech trees are different between the races since I've only played as Humans so far.

 

[JarlFrank]

Wait, I thought GalCiv 3 was going to have actual tactical combat?

There are threads about this on their forums, but I never saw the devs commenting on it. Their fanbase does the commenting for them. "When will people learn GalCiv is not fucking Total War?!" was a recurring answer. These people consider controlling your ships in battle a form of dumbing the game down.

Seems to me like the fans wanted a GalCiv 2 with updated graphics, and they received just that.

Lol, so adding features is dumbing down? And lol, Master of Orion and Space Empires series have tactical battles too, they're not "fucking Total War" either.

GalCiv's gameplay is boring as fuck, it could do with more features. And I remember the first announcement mentioning something like "we have tactical battles like MoO had!!"

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

So, the Kodex Konsensus is that this sucks? I read somewhere each race has its own tech tree this time but have they at least made it something reasonable? Or is it still the good old Bigass Laser -> Bigass Laser MKII - > Bigass Laser MKIII shit?

it's not that it sucks: paradox adds more in one of its eu patches than stardock did with this whole game. it's galciv 2.5, if you liked the 2 you'll like this, don't expect anything different.

on a side note: am i the only one who's saddened by how stardock is slowly changing into everything it swore to never become?

 

[Eyestabber]

People are just going overboard with their complaints. No tactical battles....SO WHAT? Civ4 had no tactical battles either.

I liked Galciv mostly because of its similarities with good ol' Civilization. "The Final Frontier" was my second favorite Civ 4 Mod (First is Fall From Heaven, ofc. And "the next war" was "the real Vanilla" for me).

 

[Hobo Elf]

So if a shit game doesn't have a good feature it's ok for another completely unrelated game to not have it as well?

 

[Eyestabber]

completely unrelated game

 

[Hobo Elf]

Going through the same mental gymnastics as you, we'd have to conject that since MoM has tactical combat, so should Civ4. So why doesn't it?

I'm not surprised that a self-proclaimed BG fan doesn't feel that tactical combat is an important feature and is fine with looking at the game play itself.

 

[Eyestabber]

Going through the same mental gymnastics as you, we'd have to conject that since MoM has tactical combat, so should Civ4. So why doesn't it?

I'm not surprised that a self-proclaimed BG fan doesn't feel that tactical combat is an important feature and is fine with looking at the game play itself.

Europa Universalis, Civilization, Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron, Call to Power <=== no tactical combat to be found, therefore: shit games that play themselves, according to you.

It's pretty clear that Strategy isn't really your thing, therefore I will no longer bother replying to you. Goodbye \o

 

[DakaSha]

I warned you. You didnt ban him. Now you have to deal with him.

 

[Eyestabber]

Wait, I thought GalCiv 3 was going to have actual tactical combat?

There are threads about this on their forums, but I never saw the devs commenting on it. Their fanbase does the commenting for them. "When will people learn GalCiv is not fucking Total War?!" was a recurring answer. These people consider controlling your ships in battle a form of dumbing the game down.

Seems to me like the fans wanted a GalCiv 2 with updated graphics, and they received just that.

Lol, so adding features is dumbing down? And lol, Master of Orion and Space Empires series have tactical battles too, they're not "fucking Total War" either.

GalCiv's gameplay is boring as fuck, it could do with more features. And I remember the first announcement mentioning something like "we have tactical battles like MoO had!!"

https://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/558751812916485761/

Best source of information on the topic I could find with some quick googling.

Also IMHO, after the Civ V catastrophe, folks got REALLY weary of change.

 

[rezaf]

It boggles my mind that anyone who has played GalCiv2 would feel the slightest desire to have tactical combats in this game.
Wasn't it bad enough having to move all the tile-based fleets turn after turn after turn to where they were supposed to do their pew pew pew autocombat? Just the thought of having to fight out all those battles manually brings me close to a nervous breakdown...

 

[DakaSha]

It boggles my mind that anyone who has played GalCiv2 would feel the slightest desire to have tactical combats in this game.
Wasn't it bad enough having to move all the tile-based fleets turn after turn after turn to where they were supposed to do their pew pew pew autocombat? Just the thought of having to fight out all those battles manually brings me close to a nervous breakdown...

"Man this one part of the game is really poorly done and boring. Good thing they didnt add something thats actually fun. I dont think i could handle that after being put to sleep by that other shit"

 

[rezaf]

"Man this one part of the game is really poorly done and boring. Good thing they didnt add something thats actually fun. I dont think i could handle that after being put to sleep by that other shit"

A 4x game can be good without having tactical combat. And whether it'd have been good is pure speculation.
I for one wasn't too enamoured with Elemental's tactical combat...

Besides, it's more like "man, this part of the game is time consuming like hell as it is, good thing key didn't add something that'd make it even more time consuming.".
The rest of your statement can stay, as Stardock indeed have the questionable gift of crafing games that can literally put me to sleep.

 

[DakaSha]

As long as we can agree on your last statement im down

 

[Destroid]

Cvi4 absolutely has tactical combat, it just takes place on the main map.

 

[JarlFrank]

Civ4 has better combat than GalCiv2 and I don't even particularly like Civ4's combat.

GalCiv2 is just boring with no redeeming features.

 

[Eyestabber]

Cvi4 absolutely has tactical combat, it just takes place on the main map.

Well, that's one way to see it. If you go back to the dev commentary of Civ V, you will see that they stated numerous times during development that they wanted to make combat "more tactical" (their words). We all know how THAT turned out.

"Stacks of doom" were there ever since Civ was Civ, and nobody ever thought they were a problem. Until some modder-turned-into-developer thought they were.

I'm not saying the awful combat was Civ V's only flaw (it has so many), but there was a clear shift in focus from "empire management" to "crappy-board-game-like-combat-simulator". The devs went out of their way to punish "over extension", "improvement spamming" and what-not. Such changes drastically reduced the amount of options available to the player, which resulted in a MUCH reduced skill ceiling, aka "dumbing down".

GC's fanbase desperately fought to AVOID the above-mentioned shift in focus, even if it would cost them the chance to IMPROVE their rather "meh" game.

As for whether or not the game is any good now: I don't know, I haven't played it more than 10 minutes yet. Skylines is WAY more fun.

 

[Lone Wolf]

"Stacks of doom" were there ever since Civ was Civ

Civ II was pretty Civ-y, and had no stack combat - well, you could stack units indefinitely, but if that stack wasn't on a fort or city tile the whole thing would be destroyed if one of its units died to an attack. As such, stacks were actually dangerous for the stacker, which was pretty neat.

Fond memories.

Stack combat became a thing with either Call to Power or Call to Power 2, evolving into the 'Armies' of Civ III and then turning into the late game borefest of Civ IV megastack combat. Not sure if this is a controversial opinion according to the bleeding edge of Codex thought, but Civ V definitely had better combat. It was its lack in other game systems that hurt it, in a relative sense. At least, until the BNW expansion.

Now, if only Civ V had the modding scene of Civ IV...

 

[Dreaad]

Civ4 has better combat than GalCiv2 and I don't even particularly like Civ4's combat.

GalCiv2 is just boring with no redeeming features.

This. GalCiv2 is beyond boring, it's painful. I would prefer to sit still for hours just staring at a blank wall than deal with GalExcelMnager2. Worst tech tree in the history of tech trees, meaningless exploration, micromanagement hell, bad ui, crappy animations and art direction. *shudders*.

If I want to play a micro/macro heavy game spreadsheet that is actually fun, with emergent sandbox situations I play distant worlds. At least that game realizes it's strength and minimizes its weaknesses. With full control over how much control you want to adopt over your empire. It's the only good space 4x game that has come out since MoO2. Every other game seems incapable of creating anything resembling descent pacing whether turn based or real time.

 

[Eyestabber]

Civ II was pretty Civ-y, and had no stack combat - well, you could stack units indefinitely, but if that stack wasn't on a fort or city tile the whole thing would be destroyed if one of its units died to an attack. As such, stacks were actually dangerous for the stacker, which was pretty neat.

Fond memories.

Been a LONG time since I played Civ 2. I miss the animated advisors. "Let's go BOMB SOME HEADS, SIR!!!", "I disagree, sir!", "I disagree, sir!". Fond memories indeed. As for the (lack of) stack mechanics, they were painful since you had to move units one by one, and the risk of an entire "army" die because of a single unlucky battle against a lone unit was borderline retarded. One doesn't really have to wonder as to WHY they've changed it on Civ 3.

Stack combat became a thing with either Call to Power or Call to Power 2, evolving into the 'Armies' of Civ III and then turning into the late game borefest of Civ IV megastack combat.

Both CTP games had stack-on-stack combat with melee units on the front row and archers on the back. CTP brought fast combat resolution and was the ONLY Civ/CTP (they share the same root) game to actually take army composition into account when calculating battle results. Also, a warrior destroying a tank was 100% impossible on CTP, unlike Civ 3's "LOLRANDOM" combat system. Civ 3 and 4 never had "stack combat", but rather a heavily abstracted 1v1 until one stack was entirely destroyed. Both games had pretty similar combat, but IMO Civ 4 had less "lolwut??" battle results than Civ 3.

Not sure if this is a controversial opinion according to the bleeding edge of Codex thought, but Civ V definitely had better combat. It was its lack in other game systems that hurt it, in a relative sense. At least, until the BNW expansion.

Now, if only Civ V had the modding scene of Civ IV...

Civ V is meant for brain-dead casuals, nothing more. Civ V doesn't have (and never will have) the modding scene of Civ IV because its core mechanics are utter shit. Wanna build stuff? FUCK YOU, HAVE SOME UPKEEP. Wanna expand your empire? FUCK YOU, HAVE SOME MORE UPKEEP AND ENJOY YOUR NEW SOCIAL POLICY COST, FAGGOT. Improvements? FUUUUUUUUCK YOOOOOOOOU.

I've never, EVER, hit the "end turn button" so many times and with so little hope on a Civ game. There's only so much fixing modders can do and modding the numerous idiotic design decisions out of that game is simply impossible. And the combat was also shit. Terrible balance, especially with civ-specific units, retarded AI sending its backline ahead of its frontline and MMOesque experience system. In fact, I remember a guy writting a guide to Civ V combat based on MMOs.

But, HEY, at least it had pretty animations and colors. If only modders could add an "awesome button"...

Also, this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=381961

The reasons why this shitty game (along with whoever is responsible for it) deserves to die in a fire are well documented by the fine folks of the civfanatics forum.

 

[Lone Wolf]

and the risk of an entire "army" die because of a single unlucky battle against a lone unit was borderline retarded.

In a game of abstractions, I actually didn't mind this aspect of gameplay. The design was transparent and the frustration swung both ways, so in the end you just accepted the fact that stacking units endlessly was to be avoided.

Civ V doesn't have (and never will have) the modding scene of Civ IV because its core mechanics are utter shit.

I've had fun with both. Then again, I always was a 'brain dead casual'.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Civ 4 doesn't let you design your units in meticulous detail though. The best 4X game to come out since MoO2 (or MoO3 really, but faggets on here don't like it so whatevz) is still Stardrive (The first one, not the shitty sequel). Ship design from GalCiv 2, combat and world map real time progression like Pax Imperia or Sword of the Stars, tech tree decently done, planet invasion from SW: Empire at War. Races, planets and lore pretty much copied from MoO2. Pretty much as good as it gets.

 

[rezaf]

Not sure if this is a controversial opinion according to the bleeding edge of Codex thought, but Civ V definitely had better combat. It was its lack in other game systems that hurt it, in a relative sense. At least, until the BNW expansion.

Civ5 tried to shoehorn a combat system made for a different kind of games into a global 4x game and then failed to include an AI that actually understood the system well enough to make effective use of it. And while there already some compromises were made that showcased how silly the system was for a game of this scope (archers firing over the english channel), the developers ultimately shunned back from "breaking" the traditional Civ concept to a degree to make the 1UPT hex combat really viable.
Tthe Warlock games, for example, have basically Civ5s combat, but it works MUCH better due to drastically higher ranges for both movement and ranged attacks.

and the risk of an entire "army" die because of a single unlucky battle against a lone unit was borderline retarded.

In a game of abstractions, I actually didn't mind this aspect of gameplay. The design was transparent and the frustration swung both ways, so in the end you just accepted the fact that stacking units endlessly was to be avoided.

Exactly. Getting rid of this "natural deterrent" to stacking paved the way for the "stack of doom" problem. Which is actually a relatively rare occurance in reality unless you play on one of the highest difficulties and/or on marathon speed (or a mod that makes it more likely).

I've had fun with both. Then again, I always was a 'brain dead casual'.

I've gotten a lot of flak on another forum for stating "Civ 5 is a civ game for people that don't like Civ games", but I still think that sums it up nicely. I don't think it's REALLY casual (though it's telling how high a percentage of Civ5 players routinely plays on the highest difficulties), but it scratches slightly different itches, so to speak. You can have both itches, so you can of course like Civ4 and Civ5, but if you ONLY have the itch Civ4 scratched, Civ5 is a disaster - because it's commercial success makes it highly likely to remain a role model for future games in the series.