The tech tree from GalCiv 1 will be thrown out for GalCiv 2.

In GalCiv 2 it'll be much much more straight forward with 7 or so schools of technology that operate in a very straight forward way.

Will it be somewhat easier to modify this time around? Modding tech is really the backbone of modding in a game like this... half the other elements depend on it. I think you'd see a lot more, and more extensive, mods for GalCiv if there were fewer difficulties in changing the tech tree.

I realize not everybody cares about this, but the benefits of making an easily-modded game hugely outweigh the costs, IMHO.

If I remember correctly, MOO1 as an interesting research:
- not all technologies was researchable in the same game. So you need to exchange tech to fill the hole. It also add an interesting replay value since you don't know what tech will be in the game. And this can change the way to design ship and conduct war
- the technologies were in 6 fields. You could choose how you split your research in the various field. And you don't know how much it will cost you to make the research: you have to spend first a certain amount of money. When this amount is spend, you are allowed to discover the technology. But you don't know how much you need to invest more since randomness appears. I f you are very lucky, you discover the tech as soon as you have spent the required amount. if you aren't lucky, you need to spent lots of money. Acheiving a breakthrough is not a 100% guaranted thing
- I think to remember that you could sabotage the research: all credits spent are lost. Not sure if this is in MOO1 or in another game
- even if technologies are in various fields, they were associated with particular weapons, armor (depending of the field). So modding shouldn't be a problem IF you could choose the technology to research in a particular field

I wanted to chime in to agree with some of the sentiments expressed, especially by Sirian (a couple of weeks ago now).

MOO2 was a big disappointment to me because it replaced gameplay with the appearance of gameplay. Even more disappointing is the way many people seem to prefer that. As has been said, MOO1 abstracted a lot and features that IMHO have yet to be bettered: the tech system, ship design and space battles.

The ship design and space battles complemented each other wonderfully - I remember designing multiple different ships to combat specific AI threats. In MOO2 the ship design and combat (which took half an hour in many cases) was fluffy - lacking substance.

And Peace Phoenix just described the great tech system.

What MOO1 needs was better graphics, better AI, a way to manage planet sliders in bulk, a way to upgrade ships instead of having to scrap old ones, no council victories early in the game and then you'd be on the way to a great game.

So what would I want to see in GalCiv 2:

Tech system more like MOO1 - you can't just reseach the same stuff every time.

Ship design - I don't know about tactical combat, although if challenging chess games can be programmed, why not tactical combat (the computer can look ahead n moves in tactical combat, right?).

Sliders for each planet, but a screen to filter them and make global changes to the filtered planets. Planets should be taggable to help this (Frontline, Core, Military, Social, Research). Sometimes I need a couple of constructors ASAP, but I want the rest of my planets building social.

Different planet types that are better for production, trade, research - perhaps you're production heavy in your empire - then you'd better try to outproduce the AI - this is kind of like the choice at the beginning of the Corporate Machine, except you won't know until you've colonized many planets.

Trade diplomacy - I don't want to spend half my game time going through each AI figuring out how much I can get for tech. Show me a screen where I can see who has what tech - then I want to decide which tech to trade and to who and give me the "best" price. The gameplay here is deciding which tech to sell and perhaps who to limit that selling to, not endless clicking until I find the magic number (hey, maybe you can slip this into Altarian Prophecy).

Peace Pheonix...

Again, with MoO1, an experienced player COULD guarantee what tech they would get. Just by controlling how much they spent. You couldn't determine PRECISELY when that breakthrough came, but you chould guarantee you'd get those Ion Cannons, by controlling your spending on the tech that yielded Ion Cannons. There was a predetermined amount to get the next "step", and if you doubled that amount, you'd get 2 steps up, etc. Plus, tech availability was recycled... you had a few chances to choose Photon Torpodoes... if you didn't choose it the first time, if you didn't go mad in tech spending, you'd have the option again.

And you got tech by trading, stealing, and invasion. So filling in the tech tree for a missed item (due to very hard choices repeatily coming up) wasn't that "big" a deal.

I agree. Especially if Psilons are in the Galaxy .
But the point was that you NEED the others aliens to fill the gap

GalCiv 2 could do a lot worse than simply copying MOO 1's tech system. It has yet to be bettered in any space TBS strategy game I've seen, especially considering that there are a variety of ways to get techs you don't have in your tree, each a viable option but with its own challenges to overcome.
[Message Edited]

From what little FrogBoy has said, I think GC2's tech tree is going to be parellel lines. You want better weapons, you just research weapons (and get another +1). You want more defense, you research defense.

If so, it means they effectively have MoO1's tech tree... Just not the "hard choice" when those breakthroughs come around.

Of course, that's just the impression I've gotten... and I suspect that the tech tree is not set in stone yet for GC2.

Humm... I wonder when they will start offering that as an alpha for testing? I make a decent tester.

I must be weird or something... I actualy like MOO3. Im very disappointed in the QUALITY of the game code rather than the game elements themselves, and the fact that Atari abandoned the game after 1 patch.

Rob

A key element of what makes MOO1 fun to play is the INABILITY to upgrade the ships. This tilts the game balance toward defense, in a way no other 4X game has managed to duplicate.

In MOO1, the missile bases (static planetary defense) are upgradable in exactly the way Frogboy describes.

When a new battle computer tech is learned, existing bases must be upgraded to that tech before any new bases are built, for example. Same with shields, armor or missile types.

New tech increases the cost of a missile base. That is, a base with class 2 shields costs more to build than a base with class 1 shields. The cost to upgrade from class 1 to class 2 shields is the same as the difference in the cost to build them. That is, you don't waste money by building bases. You just keep adding to your total base count and to the tech level of the bases as the game progresses.

Thus, static defenses upgrade throughout the game, while mobile forces (ships) do not upgrade. This requires would-be attackers to amass a fleet and USE IT in a relatively short period of time. Use it or lose it, on the offensive side.

Giving the advantage to the defense prolongs the uncertainty of the game's outcome. Until one civilization achieves a decisive advantage in either production or technology, or a combination of both, the game marches on with the outcome still in doubt.

As long as players do not fall too far behind, they can hide behind their defenses and try to dig out of some very deep holes. If the hole becomes too deep, however, the defenses will crack and the hole will be filled in, burying the player.


If the ships were upgradable in MOO1, it would kill the game balance. Advantage would shift to the offense, and there would be little or no point investing in static defenses AT ALL. Instead, ALL spending would have to go into mobile forces, into ships, because that would be the biggest bang for the buck. We then get the "stack of doom" effect even worse than it already is. The result is that defense becomes impossible, since you can't be in all places at once with your stacked fleet. The game becomes one of hitting the enemy faster and harder than he hits you, with only one real strategy to the game. That is, the infamous Zergling Rush from StarCraft. Be the first to hit in a way that wounds the target's production capacity, and then the game is over. OVER. One decisive battle and it's over, one way or the other. Since your offensive force is also your defensive force, whoever loses the first big battle is left with no forces at all. And then...

Why, then we'd have MOO2's game balance. Wouldn't we? Ugh. What a disaster.


Giving the advantage to defense creates a reason to bother with building static defenses. Then there is strategic choice involved with how much to invest in defense vs how much to try to invest into offense in the hope of punching through in a weak spot of your opponent's defenses.

In MOO1, the cost and effectiveness of static defenses is such that you can amass a static defense at EACH production center that can be competitive with the TOTAL offensive force of an enemy -- if technology levels are comparable. A technology advantage makes a big difference. Enough advantage can completely negate the effectiveness of the defense, meaning that a player with enough advantage can steamroll a weak opponent, all but ignoring his feeble defenses. Short of that, one can target weak spots in an opponent's defense: mineral poor planets with fewer defense bases, newer colonies on hostile worlds settled later into the game, or worlds that have been destroyed and resettled as a result of AI-on-AI warfare. Finding weak spots in your opponents' otherwise impregnable defenses adds strategy to the game, rather than the rock/scissors/paper guesswork of offense-oriented gameplay.


Without this delicate balance, the game would collapse into offense-dominated gameplay. Everything would focus on building the biggest, best Stack of Doom. Then you have the gameplay of every 4X game EXCEPT for MOO1. You could still have a good game on your hands -- Civ3 is good -- but you'd need a stronger AI.

No offense intended, Frogboy, but GalCiv's AI is not in the same league as Civ3's AI. In Civ3, the AI keeps some forces in reserve to defend its production centers, and it uses defensive escorts to reduce the exposure of attack-oriented units. The game rules help this to some extent, since large production centers gain a defensive bonus, and units inside production centers heal faster, plus defenders can utilize roads and railroads inside their borders, for increased mobility, while attackers cannot. Civ3 AI responds when threats approach its production centers, and it will occupy strategic tile locations in some instances.

There are a LOT of areas where GalCiv does better than Civ3 -- I can name a bunch if you like -- but the AI is not among them. Fact is, GC's strong points paper over some of the holes left by the GalCiv AI, but in the end, if and when those holes are fully exposed, GalCiv runs out of steam. At least it has for me. I've almost slid off the front page of the Metaverse since I quit playing about two months ago.

The solution to the GalCiv AI is to lure its ships away from its planets, then strike at the undefended production centers. This is painfully easy to do. Ray the Wanderer spelled out how to do it eight or more months ago. Bribe a war to start between your target and a third party. Your target sends ALL its ships at the third party, you swoop in and hit his exposed backside. If you bring enough, you can wipe him out in one swing. You can even have your forces PARKED in position -- or, now that parking upsets the AI's, have your ships on sector sweep or some other automatic movement that avoids triggering the AI's alert flags. Then bam, you hit em and it's over. Rinse and repeat.

In the Realms Beyond empire, we outlawed this move. I called it "bait rape", luring away the enemy's ships on purpose. Problem is, even if you don't do it actively, intentionally, you can achieve the same effect by waiting for a war to start without your interference. As soon as any war starts, the AI sends all it has at its target, leaving its production centers fully exposed with cardboard cutouts at most on defense. Swoop in there and mop up!

Unless the AI is changed to keep a reserve, a defensive force, the military side of the game will remain untenable. The same would be true for GalCiv 2.

Let me relate this to sports. Defense is what creates tension within a game. Lots of home runs may be exciting, but what is a home run worth if the pitcher keeps tossing the same pitch? A nice solid fastball right down the pike on every pitch... If the batter knows what's coming, it would be rather easy to hit plenty of home runs. Only when the pitcher uses a variety of pitches, and makes use of knowledge about the batter's batting history -- which areas of the strike zone he does better at hitting, etc -- does the game take on more life. The pitches must be variable, and to some extent they must resist prediction. If a batter gets inside the pitcher's head or figures out some exploitable pattern, to know what's coming, he has a tremendous advantage. Then consider the infield and the outfield. If the only player on defense were the pitcher, almost any ball hit past the pitcher would score a home run. The game needs a defense, nine players on the field, to make it interesting. With a proper defense, most balls that are hit result in outs, not runs. Because it is difficult to hit the ball into one of the few areas where there are holes in the defense, the game takes on life, meaning.

The same analogy could be drawn for any sport, any game.

GalCiv is very weak on defense. In fact, of all the 4X games I've ever played, this one has the weakest defensive balance of them all. As a military game, it has little to offer. What makes it a worthwhile game to play is all the non-military aspects. The diplomacy is very good: lots of nuances, lots of interesting and varied elements. The starbases are also good. The tech tree is one-dimensional, very much like Civilization's approach to tech, but for a tech tree of that type, it works out pretty well. The economic model is interesting enough to play as part of a larger game, though by itself would be pretty boring. There are several different ways to win, and each poses unique challenges.

Where the game falls down is not in the design, but in the AI's inability. The GC AI has no ability to pursue the non-military elements, and its competency at the military aspect holds up only in a vacuum, in one-on-one encounters. Throw in third parties, and the GC AI falls apart. The only threat this AI poses IS the military aspect, and you can undercut that with mastery of the diplomacy, if you have enough skill. All you have to do in GalCiv to win is to stay out of wars. That's the only threat the AI poses. It can't beat you with tech. It can't outproduce you. It can't even use terror stars, nor competently do anything else with starbases besides mine resources. It doesn't pursue culture. And with its military bent, it doesn't pursue alliance victory, either. All it does is attack other races with whom it has poor diplomatic relations. That is good enough, for a while, but once a player masters these game elements, there is nothing left to do. The fun comes to an end.

Don't get me wrong, I love GalCiv. I had a wonderful time playing it for six months, more than fifty games, and got more than my money's worth. I intend to continue supporting Stardock over time, and have kept my preorder for the AP expansion in place, even though I doubt the AI will see enough of an upgrade in it to make it worth my money, for my own use. I hold out some hope that with continued support and feedback, perhaps AP could be worth my money by the time it's all said and done. Maybe, maybe not. However, I will expect more than this from GalCiv 2. You guys will need to take it up a notch, especially with your AI. And to do that, you will have to assemble a much more competent defense, and perhaps even need to tilt your game balance more toward defense to do that.

Let's face it, the MOO1 AI is pretty weak. It does some monumentally stupid things. The strength of the game balance is what props it up. Even with that weak old AI, simplistic and oblivious in its moves, MOO1 civilizations can protect themselves with the defensive balance. Given plenty of bonuses on high difficulty, that AI can pose a significant challenge.


Should ships be upgradeable in GalCiv 2? I don't know. Doing that will further tilt the game toward offense. Is that wise? The more the game tilts toward defense, the less strength you need in your AI to make the game replayable. If you can exceed the quality of the current Civ3 AI, then you can afford to lean more toward offense in your design. If you lean toward offense without enough AI strength to cover it and provide a meaningful defense, you're heading for trouble. And regardless of the strength of your AI, leaning toward defense props up the AI and extends the range of strategic options, adding depth to the game.

Other than Sid Meier's products, Stardock is the only 4X game maker in the last decade to have put out a game that, on balance, was fun to play, in my opinion. Unfortunately for me, I've reached the end of the road on what GalCiv in its current state can offer. Civ3 is replayable because of its AI, and MOO1 is replayable because its defensive bent props up the AI.

Whatever you decide to do with GC2, I'll be watching and hoping.

Best wishes.


- Sirian

[Message Edited]

I think you are wrong on a few matters, Sirian.

In MoO1, one of the most efficent strategies was the slash and burn technique. All you needed was small ships fitted with the maximum amount of bombs and you effectively won the game. Because you could make tons of them, no planet, no matter how big/developed/core world, could hold them off. As the only adaptive thinker involved, you just picked which world you wanted to keep/make your forward naval post, and burned down the rest with your bombers. Sure, you might lose 50 or 100 a shot from big, old, productive worlds with serious defense, but you had thousands. And the first time those massed bombs would hit, would wipe out most worlds defenses.

MoO1 was fun. I do think it is the best balanced TBS game ever made. But you could never really defend in it... not without ships. And the AI was too dumb to beat a ship with a repulsor. Unless you had the bad luck of it having actually used a 2 spaced ranged weapon in a design. And that just didn't happen (less then 1% of the time it had 2 space weapons available).

No game has serious defense capability. I find Civ3 to be offensively stupid to even non-grogs. Doped out of my mind on cold medicine and barely awake, then Civ3 is a challenge. But only because 90% of my cognitive capacity is effectively asleep.

Strategically speaking, offense always beats defense. Defense is about making it more costly for someone to try and take what you are holding then they are willing to spend in men and material. There is no defense that can hold out indefinately. Now, in the realms of super science fantasy, there might be some total invention... but there will be some counter, so again, you are back to if the attacker is willing to spend the resources, they will defeat the defenders.

The point of defense is the same as security measures on your house. To make those only sort of determined to do mischief to go bother someone that it will be less trouble/work to defeat the security. (IE, find an unlocked house, one with open windows on the ground floor, etc).

Since the advantage is always to the attacker, is there a point to holding back? Unless the AI has reason to think someone else is going after it soon? Remember, the AI is actually omniscient. It knows where all the ships are. If it sees you have a waiting force near it, shouldn't the answer be to Diplo "Baiting" to be to turn down your offer? But if you are allies, why would it think you are going to attack it? Or close friends? Unless you have an established history in that game of doing so... And sending everything it has, and letting the new production take care of anything past it's mass rush of forces, isn't a bad one on one technique. I use it often enough against the AI. I wouldn't do that to a human, but then, the computer isn't human. And isn't pretending to be.

It would be *better* to have the AI mass its forces near to its worlds, when it isn't at war or getting ready for war. As it is, they just sit still when it ends a war. Why? That leaves its forces scattered... the mass wave (a technique I bet 90%+ of all the humans use, on all levels of play) is much more effective. So just having the AI pull it's ships back to home ports (and not just its "defensive" ships) would be a serious improvement to GC's ship behavior.

Additionaly, having it cycle out its older ships for better ships (a serious failing all the AI has), would improve it. 13 star fighters defending its world when it has corvettes is not smart. Easy pickens.

The current 16 or 20 ship limit around a star also needs to go. A star system is huge. This limit's removal would lessen the impact of the AI not upgrading its ships (keeping defenders around its core worlds when it has battle axes, etc).

But we are a long way from a computer being able to be a real digital Sun Tzu in these games. There are just so many aspects that have to be managed, and 50% of player strategy is always cheesing the framework... taking advantage of the game environment, rather then using "strategy". (Cheese: Such as the Infinite City Slime in Sid's games. Diplo Baiting civs in GC, etc)

You know, you can just NOT use cheese in a game. Really. Just because you know it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it. Makes for a more fun game... playing the design, and not the framework. But that's just me... I know some people don't understand why you wouldn't always maximize in the framework. But those kind of people run out of fun playing a game quickly. So they will move on faster... That's the sort that always played the humans in MoO1, so that they could suck off the aliens economy and slow them down, and diplo baited the AI. They never bothered with the other "paths", because those weren't as efficent for "winning".

Play for fun, that's my motto. Most efficent path winners don't ever seem to say "That was fun, winning Civ3 by 100 AD on Sid level." I mean, once you've gone to the extremes in a game, what's left to do? Move on to new software? Where's the fun?

Moving on isn't a bad idea... Do we really need to play these games 60 times over to get our money's worth?
Cheese is a fine line. I'm still trying to decide what I think is fair. Given that at Maso level, the AI has several hugely unfair advantages, the only way I can beat it is by taking advantage of its stupidity in one respect or another - its misplaced values for trading certain items, or its weak battle tactics. For example, it's generally considered unfair to conquer a minor world by bribing someone to attack it, and then pouncing when it launches all its ships. But even if I don't do that, when I attack them myself, on the next turn they launch all their ships, leaving their homeworld virtually defenceless. How far do I have to go in helping the AI? (And I really hate losing - if the game is going badly I'll do pretty much anything to win, so my code of honour doesn't usually amount to very much.)
Anyway, what I really wanted was some help with MOO1. How do I enjoy it more? I've beaten it on hard difficulty, but far too many of my games end suddenly with someone being prematurely elected president of the galaxy, which I hate even if it's me. Is there a recommended difficulty level/galaxy size/race pick combination that will maximise my fun?

~SDC~

I wish I had time to respond to the rest of the thread, but for now, I can answer this...

I've always found the hardest games of MOO1 to be on Impossible, Medium galaxy, max. opponents, and play as the Mrrshan (and the Strategy Guide agrees with me... ). For a somewhat easier game, try the same settings with a stronger race.

Either make a point of beating the Humans down early, so they're never in the top 2, or just check the race selection at the start, and restart the game if there are any Humans (I don't consider this cheating at all... Humans are broken in that game).

How do you check the race selection?
Not looking for the hardest possible game. In my last game, I played a large galaxy, hard difficulty, as the humans, and was on good relations with everyone, was involved in an interesting war, and they all got together and voted Klackon. Not sure how many more times I'm going to put up with this...

~SDC~

I don't fear the Humans in MOO1. They are NOT broken in terms of game balance for the AI playing them. They are the easiest race for winning by the vote, hands down, but there is more to MOO1 than the fastest possible diplomacy victory.

I fear the Psilons. They are the most apt to pose a military threat, because they are the most apt to achieve a decisive tech advantage.

That Matthew played as Humans and still lost in the diplomacy should be encouraging. If the game can't beat you, is it worth your time to play it? If any set of moves will achieve victory, is there any worth to strategizing? If a game is good, should you expect to pick it up and master it within a few tries? I can assure you that in my experience both the military and the diplomacy have viable balance. There are many things you can do to further your cause in each area. You will have to do enough things well to outmatch the opposition. One thing you can't afford to do is to make too many political enemies. You've got to have enough friends and allies to avoid losing in the council. That's doable in any number of ways, though of course, there is no one pat formula for success, or the game wouldn't be worthy of much praise.


I had allocated a chunk of my time for assembling a tournament for GalCiv, but have decided that this is not viable at this time. That left a vacuum in my gaming plans, which I have filled with a plan to revive MOO interest at least within RB gaming circles, and sponsor an RB tournament for MOO1.

Matthew, I may be able to help you. I don't want to run too far off topic here, since this thread is about how MOO affects GalCiv, and what we think might or might not be worthwhile to see in GC2. I invite you to come to the RB forum, where we can run a subthread in my MOO thread and I can try to answer all of your questions and provide you the help you seek.

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/237344

Or you can email me if you prefer.

My own MOO1 page is only a week old, so only a few parts of it are operational, but you might find some information of interest. I don't have anything up yet about strategy, though.

http://sirian.warpcore.org/moo1/index.html

If you decide to pursue my invitations, I look forward to talking with you again.


I have more replies I intend to make to Star Pilot, but each item in its own time. Life goes on, don't you know.

- Sirian

Sirian, no worries. Feel free to add to StarDock's knowledge base on suggestions for improvement of Galciv.

But I long ago accepted that you can diplo bait. Or a huge number of other "scamming the rube AI" ploys. Not my cup of tea, but if others prefer it, let them, is my general philosophy.

I always found MoO1 toughest/most challenging on maximum galaxy size, maximum number of opponents, and the level just below max in "difficulty". One level up from there (at the maximum difficulty), and the AI always did the exact same things, regardless. Made the game too predictable for me. One level down, and there was a better range in how it would react.

Consistantly, I think that the Psilon, Silicon, and Klackons were the regular big 3 AI players in most of my MoO1 games... as long as they got decent starting set-ups. Just my experiences, of course.

IIRC, you can refuse to accept any election results, can't you? Been too long since I've mucked with that. It isn't difficult to keep anyone from being elected though. (See spoilers)

MoO1 spoiler tips:
* Give away old or useless tech to your neutrals or friends. This is way over-valued by them... worth way more in "remembered deeds" then it should be. Do that a couple of times, and thats one race that will prefer to vote for you for council, as long as you are not running against them.
* Use Diplo "baiting". If all the races are at war with each other, they won't vote for each other. Basic tactic.
* Burn down the bigger then you guy's worlds. Then you can be the top/most votes, and you just abstain if you don't want to end the game at council vote.

I managed to recover from my last lost-election game by loading a save, replaying the last thirty minutes, and simply asking the guy who was going to win to declare war on the Silicoids. Hadn't tried this before - it didn't seem polite.
I wouldn't recommend MOO1 to everyone - it's too abstract for all but the most hardcore strategy gamers. Most people can relate far more to building a Space Academy, a Fusion Power Plant or a Great Pyramid than they can to building 0.8 factories.

~SDC~

Agree with you about MOO1, I think that GALCIV is a different kind of strategy game and we must realize that, macro against micromanagement, macro against microespionage, there are just 2 games of the same genre but with different management skills


***********************************************************

Come and Join the GROSS Empire, we are the best, or something like that

Join us link http://www.galciv.com/metaverse/empires.asp?id=272

This from the guy who lectures me about the nobility of having enough restraint not to use cheese? So what does he do to discredit the game I praise? Point out the cheese. A nine letter word comes to my mind, starting with the letter H.



I disagree. The less cheese, the better. Cheese lovers can find unlimited amounts to their hearts' delight in just about any game they care to pick up. I say, their "right" to have cheese in EVERY game does not trump my interests to play one or two games without the cheese.

"Cheese" is a very poor word choice to describe abuse of design flaws, anyway, in my view, as is "cheat" to describe a handicap. Sloppy slang. Their meanings and interpretations vary from player to player. Meaningful discussions cannot be had with loose terms.

If we buy into the straw man Star Pilot offers, and try to look at game quality with all available exploits on the table, all games fail. ALL of them.

That was never the context I apply to GalCiv, yet he accuses me of doing so. Then he flipflops and applies it to MOO1, and pretends that he has said something useful.

My evaluation of both games is from the point of view of what kind of game is possible with restraint, using voluntary restrictions to work around the flaws.

I know that Frogboy appreciates this point of view. I have seen him urging players to "play the game, not the score" on several occasions. He knows he can't possibly plug all the leaks. A) It may not be possible at all. If it were possible, it would not be financially feasible for his company. Too many hours of labor required, too few new dollars brought in as a result. All he can do is prioritize to try to gain the most benefit from the labor that he is able to commit, to move as far as possible toward the ideals with the allotted resources. I know that he and Stardock cannot meet the ideals, because nobody can. They have come closer to them, achieved more of them, than any other game maker since SimTex and MOO1, in my view, and that's why I support them. I've supported them with my money, my time, my energy, and my views. I don't expect them to heed my every word, but I do believe they are listening, giving my views a fair consideration, and that is one more reason to support them. They are doing many things right, and I'm hopeful for their future products.

The problem for GalCiv is that the entire diplomatic exchange model is flawed, not just one or two elements, so that if we take the "cheese" off the table, there's no diplomacy left. There's only one grade of alliance, make or break. Thus there is no way to sign middle-range treaties to improve relations without "choosing sides" and ending up at war. Bribes are make or break. And if we use the diplomacy in any form to prevent the AI's from declaring war on us, the game has lost all its teeth, because war is the ONLY threat this AI can pose. There is no way to work around these factors, when combined. If we use diplomacy at all, the outcome is certain. If we forego all use of diplomacy, the game is reduced to one-dimensionality. Either way, once you know "too much" about the game mechanics, the game is dead. That just isn't the case for Master of Orion, where a little restraint in avoiding abuse of the flaws can still leave you with a great game and a great contest to be engaging.


I have an answer for all of the MOO1 exploits that Star Pilot has so far put forth. He has the answer, too, but does not seem inclined to put his behavior where his mouth is, in regard to playing with some restraint. Perhaps that is more of an ideal that he is shooting for, rather than an accomplishment that he has mastered. Or perhaps it is merely hypocrisy.

His criticisms of MOO1 are essentially a distraction, though. I've offered criticism of some elements of GalCiv, and rather than answer those, he has chosen to attack what I've held up as a stronger example of what a game can do. If I rebut these charges, the distraction works, because the topic shifts to that instead of what I was talking about. If I don't, the charges will persist and that too distracts. Enh. Politics in motion. The price we pay for freedom of speech and opinion.

Some people not only know how to cheese a game, but also how to cheese a discussion. Kudos.


- Sirian

I disagree. A Fusion Power Plant is just as abstract as a factory. The difference is, having all your production units the same frees you from the illusion of "strategy" in choosing which type of production center to build first.

In actual practice, GalCiv's model plays out about the same as MOO1.

In MOO1, you allocate spending to build more facilities, and there's almost nothing to manage EXCEPT for when to spend on facilities vs when to spend on military or research. How's that any different from GalCiv?

In MOO1, you start the game able to build only a fraction of your potential facilities. You must learn more tech to be able to build the rest. In GalCiv, it's the same effect.

So where's the difference? In MOO1, facilities are universal. The TYPE of facility is abstracted. You don't have to manage (micromanage) what types of facilities to build or not to build. You delegate that, in effect, to your local governors. Well, the same happens in GalCiv, really. You arrange a governor list, maybe two, with instructions to build which in what order, and then you forget about it.

By now, haven't you settled on a "best" order for your facilities, that you use over and over, game after game? If so, where's the "strategy" to that? You've hit on a formula, and that formula (with a few exceptions, like wonders and trade goods) plays out the same game after game without any thought. Right? At least that's the case for me, as I've settled on a best order to build all the improvements, and soared to the front page of the Metaverse without even playing the score instead of the game.

In fact, by having different TYPES of facilities, each with a fixed cost, the economics in GalCiv take on a bland sameness game after game. Line up the governor lists, always the same lists, and march through the list, building all the items on the list without even paying much attention. This is supposed to be more sophisticated than MOO1's process in WHAT way, exactly?

I find GalCiv to be the one that is more abstract. What planet has only one shipyard? What planet has only one research lab? Come on! That's abstraction for you. MOO1 doesn't tell you what the facilities are, only what the net result is. But it's the same core economic model. GalCiv even uses the same term! BC! Billion Credits. Both economies turn on BC, and BC are spent toward industrial, military, or research. Both games even use a slider to split the spending!

If you aren't realizing how much GalCiv draws from the inspirations of MOO, you haven't looked very hard.

However, in MOO1, the planets actually play differently. There is not a flat fee tied to facilities that are the same for all planets. Smaller planets with smaller populations use fewer facilities. That makes a lot more sense to me. Why would a planet half the size need a one-size-fits-all Fusion Power Plant or Space Academy? In real life, these facilities are not one-size-fits-all. Smaller cities have smaller universities, have smaller factories or fewer regular size factories. Small towns may have only one factory, or many small businesses. Nobody would build a massive university to support a village, yet that is the effect that ALL games not following the MOO1 model have managed to simulate. Playable, maybe. Ideal? I don't think so.




Take a look around, my friend. The person on your left, and the person on your right -- everybody here in this forum qualifies as a hard core strategy gamer. The casual strategy gamers are playing RTS games. GalCiv foregoes the eye candy, flash and pomp, in favor of the gameplay. MOO1 in its day and time had more flash for its era, by far, than GalCiv does for today's era. Of course, GalCiv is also an older game, adapted from OS2 to Windows, so perhaps that's a little unfair. Still, they are two birds of a feather.

As for "abstract", that's not really the issue, in my view. The question is more about "strategy". Do you like strategy with your strategy games, or not? There is more strategy available in MOO1, on balance. GalCiv offers plenty, too, but the economic strategy is more of a puzzle that you solve, than a game that you play. Once you know the answers, they play out the same game after game. MOO1 has a wider range of gameplay, and it is the very flexibility imposed by abstracting the facilities that creates part of that.

If it's not your cup of tea, I understand. But I have another view. I don't see the point of the one-size-fits-all facilities. They are less realistic, less strategic, and less satisfying for me. And because of that, I see them as more abstract in practice. I think MOO1 does better not to try to tell us what the facilities ARE, and instead focus on making them serve the purpose for which they are intended.

I would like to see GalCiv2 move beyond the canned puzzle that GC1 offers, and give us more strategy to facility construction. Your preference may differ.


- Sirian

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but Space Empires IV has some ship design features that work pretty well. It is more centered around specific criteria for each ship class - e.g. certain required characteristics like Bridge, Life Support, Engines, etc. in each ship class. As new ship designs are created you can mothball or scrap old ones. It works pretty well. Overall, I like GC much more than SEIV as SE can get pretty tedious wiht the amount of micromanagement involved.

~SDC~

Sirian,

You have been giving me the impression that you think MoO1 is far superior to GalCiv. I don't think that is true. I played MoO1 first, and I have a great appreciation for it. It certainly has elements to it I prefer, due to my play-style. But straight out comparison, I do not think it is light years better then GC.

I was offering tips to the *new* MoO1 players on how to get around bad Councils or fear of early Council defeats. I don't do that in MoO1. Just as I don't "leverage" similar things in GC. It's just not my play-style.

Your main two points in this discussion between us seems to be: You want to set your chance of winning, from 0% to 100%, when you play GC, and you cannot do that. As a consequence, the game is a "total failure". As are all games that you cannot do this.

You aren't being clear why the "total failures" of MoO1 and Civ3 aren't "total failures" (your own words from previous posts). Just that you will paper over their complete and total failures (as you see it) to play them. Is that just your personal preferences? We all have our preferences, and that's fine if it is. But I am trying to understand why it's okay for those games to be "total failures" but still hold your attention.

You are the one that has been dragging MoO1 into this and holding it up for comparison. I've simply been reversing your own arguments onto your model of comparison because MoO1 has many of the same failings as GalCiv. How is that "distracting" the debate? The issue under discussion is the same. For instance: Diplomacy and how you see Loki-ing (using Diplomacy against the various AI) as something that needs to be addressed (closed out or made less unbalancing somehow) in all of these games, especially GC, as not doing so makes them a “total failure” (your words) that you will never trouble with. Although for some reason, you find SD to be a fine company, and are going to buy their future products even though you don’t expect anything seriously changed in GC2? Or their other, similar, products? That’s some loyalty from a man that finds their product to be a “total failure” in meeting his entertainment needs. StarDock must have done things very right then!

It seems you are willing to paper over MoO1's flaws, but not GC. I don't understand this distinction in your behavior. MoO1 is a great game, true, but it and GC1 are effectively the same game. The same strategies, the same basic strategic exploits, the same tactics. There are very few differences. The only serious strategic differences I can think of at the moment are their pacing and the random AI. Is that it? The lack of the completely random crazy AI in GC? Is that what sets it apart so much in your view? I don't think so, but I can understand how people that side more with non-predictability might think of that as a challenging element of the game. I view it like playing a game with your younger brother or sister, never knowing if they are going to attack you that turn, or attack someone else. But you still know you are going to beat them. So, how does that correct the "I know I've won the game before I started it" problem that seems to be your original complaint?

If you are willing to paper over MoO1 and excuse it of the same failings as GC, why not do the same with GC? Because you have the developer's ear? We know that nothing that significant is going to be changed in GC1. So why mention it, let alone writing long dissertations? Are you hoping to impress SD so that they might make GC2 in a fashion more to your preferences? If that's what it is, then I understand why you are still here. I just don't think that *any* game made in the next 7 years that allows the human sufficient amount of diplomatic "bargaining"/maneuvering can be protected from the Human player going "Loki". That's not a strawman. You may choose to believe they could do that, or even should do that, but the simple economics isn't there to support you at this time.

Pick on the lingo if you like, but you still aren't answering why it is perfectly acceptable to have a rinse and repeat in one game you like, but not in another. That's what bothers me about your arguments here, Sirian. You claim it's alright to have "cheese/cheats/glaring total failures" in games you like (MoO1, Civ3), but not in GalCiv? That seems inconsistent. Whether you unleash your war machine, or merely keep it primed and ready at home (so that those games only pester you occasionally with minor wars and raids), you still have to have the capability to win the War. Civ3 is still the same war game that Civ1 was--- it just lets you waste more time looking after your War Machine’s production centers and capabilities.

So, what makes the distinction for you? MoO1 is a total failure that you are willing to spend time on (your words). GC isn’t. What is the real difference to you? The fact you can design your own ships in MoO1? Drop being a Loki via Diplomacy, and what’s left? War, war, and more war, in MoO1 (you cannot win a council victory without using Diplo or War except for the very rare times that all the AI are warring on each other and not on you when it's council voting time. Very rare). That’s a major sore point of your against GC, isn’t it? Without Diplo, it's only a war game? So, what is it, precisely, that MoO1 is doing that GC isn’t? Is it that you expect GC to be more then a game you seem to think is the best 4x game ever made (your words)?

Waiting for you to toss me a spare clue…

Well, as for a younger lad like me, i feel the multiplayer aspect is essential in virtually any 4X strategy game... Okay, i know, i've read the encyclopedia, but i feel that creating a highly intelligent AI and swear words is not exactly a good excuse for not creating a multiplayer system, for there is something a human has unlimited a computer can only have a limited capability of : adaptability.

Okay, if you still feel that the internet multiplayer is not a good idea, maybe you could implement a 'hotseat' style game, where 2 or more players could play on the same computer. Well, it just a suggestion.

I would agree with Sirian that planet size should be taken into account. You can build more buildings on larger planets and les buildings on smaller ones, this could mean a new index for planets (maybe 2 indices, one for planet quality and another for planet size). This way, you can choose to have a research lab planet or an industrial giant .

Gas Giants (and, may i propose, asteroid fields) in solar systems would be a whole new ball game altogether. Instead of colonizing them, you build starbases on them, there u mine resources... (what resources u mine there is up to the developers) and upgrade starbases the etc. Gas giants would be a plus to any solar system. (say maybe you can find gas giants more often in uninhabitable stars like red, blue, green etc. and NOT in yellow or purple LOL )

Star Pilot, I don't think MOO1 and GC are quite as similar as you are making out. There are a number of similarities, but there are a significant number of differences as well, most of which IMHO are strengths MOO1 has that GC lacks. For instance, In MOO1, you can't blindly pick the same path through the tech tree every time. Some games you may find that you have no automated factories until very late in the game, or no missile tech (always a significant problem!) This makes for a challenge finding a way to work around the limitations the tech tree imposed for that game -- and they are not the same limitations from game to game.

But, I think you wanted to specifically addess combat, so here is another point of view.

------

In MOO1, the defensive-oriented balance means you have to pose a credible threat to be able to make gains on an AI. In GalCiv, you can poach to your hearts content. Even when you do go to war, the AI is not very bright about how it manages its ships, or about what it needs to prevent losing the war. If we are able to take on all the AIs simultaneously as soon as we contact them, before they go to one another, and win easily, it's clear that the threat they pose is simply not that great. You can't declare war on everyone as soon as you meet them in MOO1 and expect to win.

In my view, even leaving aside the fact that you can design your own ships in MOO1 and not in GC, MOO1's combat model is way better, even though MOO1's AI is not any more intelligent. You have to do far more to be a threat to the AI, militarily speaking.

You said:


Sure, once you get towards the end of the game where you can actually afford the cost of construction and attrition for that many bombers. By that time, you should already have the game well in hand. An overwhelming fleet of bombers is not in and of itself a way to win the game -- it's a way to shorten a game that's already been won. As such, I don't really consider that a weak point.


I don't know what game of MOO1 you were playing, but I almost never bothered to build ships for defending my own planets. Some people use slow-missile ships to cheese the MOO1 AI; I never bothered, and I rarely had problems defending my own colonies. The only time I built defensive ships was to protect any new colonies I would conquer on my initial raids into weakly-held enemy space, before I had built up a sufficiently massive tech/population advantage as to make the game a foregone conclusion.

Saying you use only ships for defense makes me think you let the game drag out to the end of the tech tree, as beam weapons do tend to out-power missile weapons at the end of the game. This dovetails nicely with your earlier comment about massive bomber fleets. I personally found the mid-game when missiles are the dominant offensive tech to be much more interesting. By the time I have the beam technology and the miniaturized high-yield bombs to wipe out the universe with, the game's a foregone conclusion anyway.


Again, I don't know what game of MOO1 you've been playing, but it's not the one I know. You can easily win with nothing but defense in MOO1. Just sit behind your defenses and research, out-tech your opponents in planetology, and win the vote by fiat, or with alliances. This is not hard to do. If you like offense more, then sit behind your defenses, research, get a big tech lead, then build a high-tech fleet and crush all opposition. This is also not hard to do. Either way, it was effectively the defense that won the game, by getting you in a position to win. The rest is just mopping up.

[Message Edited]