GalCiv2 Expansion

[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

[Captain Kwok]

It's a double-edge sword. There are some players that enjoy the chance to micromanage everything and would complain if they couldn't - and others who don't want to do micromanage but feel stuck with it in the SE series. For those that don't like the depth - there are plenty of ways to automate most of the turn-to-turn items. However, with the AI/Ministers lacking in development, it's not as good as it could be. Hopefully with SE:V, the scripting capabilities will be utilized and adept AI modders provide us with some excellent ministers.

Anyway, I don't think either game really needs to be compared to each other. The simple fact is that the more we support the genre, the more gaming options we'll have in the future.

[Fyron]

If I wanted to play a board type game I wouldnt be playing a computer game.

Whereas GC2 defines exactly how the game is to be played and then does it very well.

Isn't that exactly what a board game is? Defines exactly how the game is to be played, due to the very nature of a board game? Board games intrinsically more limited than what you can do with computer games.

(please note the smiley)

[Renegade 13]

Nats said:
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

Hmmm...Well the micromanagement is part of the reason I do play SEIV! I want to be able to control every single aspect of my empire; after all, if you weren't, you wouldn't be a very good dictator

Whereas GC2 is, in my opinion, quite limited as to your options. Essentially, play one game of GC2 and you might as well not play it again, since every game is the same; tactics are always the same, your options are quite limited. Whereas SEIV has tons of options, tons of weapons, tons of different strategies, etc etc.

Of course this is my opinion only, and you're not likely to share it

[Suicide Junkie]

If you feel like you need to step in and give orders during a combat, that means your strategies you went in with suck, and need to be improved for the next battle.

Or possibly that your enemy is a crafty bugger, and legitimately caught you with your pants down.

[Nats]

Both games are good and you can buy both!

Personally I would rather play an updated version of Stars! than either SE5 or GC2 but unfortuntely that isnt an option at the moment

Nats

[Fyron]

You should be able to recreate some of the Stars! experience in SE5.

[Phoenix-D]

..you CAN lay a minefield. Just not in combat. Can't really do that in RL either, by the way.

People play hex games on the computer because A. they can be made a lot more detailed and still be playable, B. the turns are MUCH faster, C. AI support, D. multiplayer across the internet

Shiny graphics aren't everything- and before you pull out the old rabbit from the other thread, I DO have a decent system. I can run FEAR at full detail.