OT, galactic civ II

[Saber Cherry]

Anyone reading this thread may wish to look at the GC2 thread in the Space Empires forum as well. Opinions vary, with mine seeming the most negative, for some reason. I think the next patch (+demo) is scheduled for the end of the month.

[Ironhawk]

Oooo, I'd definitely like to see a demo.

As for MP, the only problem you all list is the time it takes to build/research things. If thats the only problem then stardock should just drop all the production and research costs by like 1/2 or 1/4 or something for MP play.

That said: I thought that Stardock said they were not pursuing any MP development. Saying that SP was where thier market was so they were just going to do that.

[Gandalf Parker]

Their initial basis was the artificial intelligence of adversaries. For many years they have been the number #1 game mentioned in any AI paper as far as game AI. At that time it was available for OS/2 only since Windows didnt have multi-tasking then. Now they are moving into the other OS's, marketing the game, etc etc. But since AI was the starting point (which is mostly a solo-play thing) then I think MultiPlay is probably the last thing to be figured into the GalCiv game. Thats the reverse of many other games which start with the MP, then later on try to add AI onto it.

[cjx]

In my opinion the game is pretty awful. If you're a Dom2 fan I think you'll be left with a bad taste in your mouth. I can deal with the terrible interface (hey, I play Dom2 don't I?), I can even deal with the poor (and in some cases wrong)documentation, but what I find unacceptable is that there are showstopping AI flaws (tech buy/sell cheese, planet stealing during allied wars) in a game with no multiplayer. Make no mention of the multitude of bugs. Yes, they are fixing them and yes everyone seems to be publishing unfinished games, but that's no excuse to release a game with the volume of problems they had.

Reading threads on their messageboards I found the tone of the vocal developer to be very condescending and sometimes downright insulting to the players who questioned/complained about some "features". Some of the baloney responses that the devs fabricate really seem to indicate that they don't even know how to fix the problems so they try and pretend they are game features.

The depth of strategies in GalCiv2 boils down to which overpowered strat do you want to cheese the computer with. If you're satisfied bumbling around in the dark and never trying to understand the game you're playing and never actually formulating a strategy, GalCiv2 is for you. If you've played and liked Dom2 (MoO2) you'll be disappointed.

Just my opinion. I really wanted to like the game. I really wanted to like MoO3 too... Turn based strategy that's worthwhile? CiV4 and Dom2 are great games. MoO2, CiV3, Advance Wars. I like TBS and 4x, but I regret purchasing GalCiv2.

cjx

[NTJedi]

thanks cjx.... I did some more browsing on their forums and you're right... definitely a reason to wait for multiplayer.

[RonD]

I think "pretty awful" is harsh. (I'm not saying you shouldn't think that or express your thoughts here, by the way - I'm just disagreeing with you)

cjx said:
The depth of strategies in GalCiv2 boils down to which overpowered strat do you want to cheese the computer with. If you're satisfied bumbling around in the dark and never trying to understand the game you're playing and never actually formulating a strategy, GalCiv2 is for you. If you've played and liked Dom2 (MoO2) you'll be disappointed.

Winning SP by applying cheeze strats most certainly applies to dom2 (see SC's recent post advocating summoning all the blood uniques - we all know full well that the AI can't handle that). As for Moo2, the AI's "intelligence" consisted entirely of giving the computer overwhelming resource advantages.

Sure I'd love MP galciv2 (if they could implement it so that the game actually moved along at a decent pace). But for SP, comparing gc2 to dom2, it is a lot easier to have fun by choosing to not use cheeze strats in gc2. Even the civ4 forums are full of ideas on ways to make victory all but certain on most of the difficulty levels. 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.

Yes, I prefer MP TBS games for that reason (but very very few other than dom2 implement MP in a way that fits my schedule). So I won't knock gc2 just because it has not fully overcome that inherent weakness of SP strategy games.

Finally, while you may or may not like Brad Wardell and his style, I find it refreshing that he is putting himself right out front - not just in the stardock forums, either. He regularly answers questions in places like OO and QT3 as well.

[OG_Gleep]

Yeah, you could say the same thing about a lot of games. Gamers will always find a way to outsmart the AI, thats why MP is for the most part much more challenging.

That said, I don't take most of the threads *****ing about that kind of stuff to heart this close to release. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I have found that a lot of people complain about "challenge" when they are playing on easy, then come back and say the game is too hard when the bump up the difficulty settings.

And anytime I see a developer in a forum, it is a good thing. I don't care if he is an ***.

[Gandalf Parker]

Decent multiplay and decent soloplay have always seemed to be to be anti to each other. Too many good features of one tends to ruin the other. Id much prefer that a developer pick one or the other to concentrate on, and then add whatever they can of the other without compromising the focus of the game

[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]

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).