Galactic Civilizations III

[JarlFrank]

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.

And yet I'd much rather have a Civ5 with many different ideas to its predecessors, that plays differently and is a fresh game, even if some aspects of it don't work perfectly, than to have a clone of Civ4 with better graphics. Because if I want to play Civ4, I play Civ4 with expansions and mods for the definitive experience, rather than paying money (or spending bandwith on pirating) for a sequel that is exactly the same.

This way, I can play Civ4 when I feel like playing Civ4 and Civ5 when I feel like playing Civ5 because both are different games with a different gameplay focus.

When a meh game gets a sequel that is just as meh, only with better graphics and larger maps because hardware is more powerful nowadays, I don't see any reason to buy or even pirate it. It's just more of the same, and that same isn't even good.

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

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...

Yes, Civ5 actually has some fun elements and with expansions it's a worthwile game to play. It's still different from its predecessors, sure, but as I said, if I want to play Civ3 or Civ5, I can do so. With mods that make them even better.


Now, they could've tried something new with GalCiv3, something other than boring spreadsheet simulator, but apparently they didn't. Too bad.

 

[Eyestabber]

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.

This is quite accurate, albeit a bit too willing to forgive Civ V's shortcomings.

And yet I'd much rather have a Civ5 with many different ideas to its predecessors

Not "different ideas", straight up "dumbing down" by removing core elements of gameplay and replacing them with fluff.

even if some aspects of it don't work perfectly

Maybe after 8569854651651 patches and "expansions" they've fixed it, but I only played Civ V at release and I remember that the game's economy was completely fucked up. That's not "some aspects", that's the whole thing. Also, the "expansions" weren't really expansions, they just added some of the stuff they've previously stripped the game of. A shady business practice that should NOT be encouraged by anyone.

than to have a clone of Civ4 with better graphics

Well, I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Civ Series, because if you were you'd know that Civ 2, 3 and 4 improved on their predecessors while keeping the game's foundation intact. Civ V was the game that said "fuck this shit!!!11", wrecked everything and created a popamole mess. "Keep the old stuff and add new cool stuff" was the recipe for Civ 2-4, and that's what we wanted from Civ V.

Because if I want to play Civ4, I play Civ4 with expansions and mods for the definitive experience, rather than paying money (or spending bandwith on pirating) for a sequel that is exactly the same.

Again, you failed to grasp the difference between "evolving from its predecessor" and "making a clone with better graphics". We wanted the former, not the latter. It looks like Galciv went with the latter, but I won't know for sure until I play it. Still building my awesome Skylines city, tho...

 

[Raghar]

It's not exactly AI developers fault CIV V can't do stuff with units. They created system which limits number of units, but they screwed up restrictions and it should look differently. As a consequence it doesn't limit player correctly and it decreases number of units at his disposal in later era when number of cities would increase. The problem is they simply added a lot of units to AI at higher difficulties, which completely dazes the AI, and considering one unit per tile, and other stuff like naval transport doesn't exists, it hurts AI a lot.

The AI might work if there would be higher density of the grid, or when they would allow grouping 3 units per tile.

Another problem I seen from gameplay on highest difficulties is that burning down cities will not require military units to stay in the city until it burns to the ground. Considering it takes a while, they simply allowed 1. using burning city to attack enemy 2. relieve one unit to continue operations. (And when upgrading units is so easy, and upgraded units keeps theirs range advantage, it's easy to take pot shots against enemy until player wins.)

 

[razvedchiki]

soooo any codexer played the game?impressions?
how does it compare to the legacy GC2 left?

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

it's gc2.5.
something added here, something changed there. a lot removed everywhere.

 

[razvedchiki]

well im gonna say it-streamlined compared to 2?

 

[Volrath]

How the fuck do you streamline II???

 

[razvedchiki]

for my tastes 2 was complicated enough.

the only thing i found a little annoying was that you cant directly command your fleets during battles,maybe you refer to that?

 

[Spectacle]

well im gonna say it-streamlined compared to 2?

Nope, many things have gotten a lot more complex, actually.

 

[Space Satan]

soooo any codexer played the game?impressions?
how does it compare to the legacy GC2 left?

Absolutely disgusting. Its not that it could be fixed - the problems are all the same GalCivII had
- Retarded rock-paper-scissors weapon system are still here. So if you invester in super laser beams and AI by chance invested in shields you are fucked unless you will refit all your ships to something else. hen AI is fucked. Battles are either one-sided most of the time or squabbles of jack-of-all trades armadas, with little sbeams, little missiles and little kinetics. Same goes for defences.
- Economy and planet developement is a mess. They added some neighborhood bonuses but anyway planets are scarce and all are smell. Don't even expect MoO2 scale - platens are like several country houces with 7 or so buildings. Oh, and you have to station fleet there - planets can't defend themselves.
It's a screaming mediocricy of a game. Dragon Age: Inquisition of 4X strategies.

 

[whatevername]

It's not exactly AI developers fault CIV V can't do stuff with units. They created system which limits number of units, but they screwed up restrictions and it should look differently. As a consequence it doesn't limit player correctly and it decreases number of units at his disposal in later era when number of cities would increase. The problem is they simply added a lot of units to AI at higher difficulties, which completely dazes the AI, and considering one unit per tile, and other stuff like naval transport doesn't exists, it hurts AI a lot.

The AI might work if there would be higher density of the grid, or when they would allow grouping 3 units per tile.

Another problem I seen from gameplay on highest difficulties is that burning down cities will not require military units to stay in the city until it burns to the ground. Considering it takes a while, they simply allowed 1. using burning city to attack enemy 2. relieve one unit to continue operations. (And when upgrading units is so easy, and upgraded units keeps theirs range advantage, it's easy to take pot shots against enemy until player wins.)

Whoever made the AI either didn't play the game or they are retards.

 

[razvedchiki]

Retarded rock-paper-scissors weapon system are still here. So if you invester in super laser beams and AI by chance invested in shields you are fucked unless you will refit all your ships to something else. hen AI is fucked. Battles are either one-sided most of the time or squabbles of jack-of-all trades armadas, with little sbeams, little missiles and little kinetics. Same goes for defences.

well in GC2 i first tried to see what the enemy fleets had in them and equiped mine to counter them,if you went blind choosing what to equip based randomly you would be quickly fucked.

- Economy and planet developement is a mess. They added some neighborhood bonuses but anyway planets are scarce and all are smell. Don't even expect MoO2 scale - platens are like several country houces with 7 or so buildings. Oh, and you have to station fleet there - planets can't defend themselves.

that was in case in 2 too,wait you mean there are no land battle at all?

 

[Space Satan]

MoO2 had a principle of One armor-lots of weapons. It allowed you to go for weapons that blast hull, or internal systems, immobilize ships to capture them etc. etc. Here it is a no-brainer what to do - if enemy have beams, switch to shields, if kinetics - use armor. It renders all investment in the weaponry useless as armor will negate this investments.
As for land battles -you just select preferred method of invasion and presented with either Victory or Defeat text.

 

[razvedchiki]

havent played master of orion at all,its been praised as the pinnacle of space 4x starategy but erm you know.....it has some erm old grafik style

WHY ARE YOU PICKING THAT BASEBALL BAT?

 

[Zarniwoop]

havent played master of orion at all,its been praised as the pinnacle of space 4x starategy but erm you know.....it has some erm old grafik style

WHY ARE YOU PICKING THAT BASEBALL BAT?

I actually thought MoO3 was better. Because it's the only 4X game of its time where you feel like you're managing a space EMPIRE, instead of a tiny cluster of 10 or so planets. Yeah it was buggy as shit and the interface was ugly but modders fixed that, the core gameplay was solid, and especially the way the different races play which is a big weakness of 2.

Actually some of the more modern 4X games that work on that same principle (less micromanagement, moar stars) like Sword of the Stars and Endless Space are also p. good but yeah, the hivemind doesn't think so. Inb4 lul spreadsheets.

The last few years have been pretty good for 4X games, but each one has a serious flaw.

SotS 1&2: HEAVILY combat focused, most other areas of the game are very limited. Especially the tech tree. Nice space station mechanic though. Also the best race distinctions of any 4X I know of.

Endless Space: Great game but the combat sucks. It works but it's weird and tactical combat would be so much better. Actually in the late game it doesn't matter so much since you auto-resolve in other games anyway.

Galciv series: Utterly shit and tiny tech tree. No tactical combat even though it has the most detailed ship designer of all time.

Stardrive: Good in all areas except copying MoO2 too much. And it copies the bad stuff. Races are very similar and the "galaxy" is laughably tiny.

Stardrive 2: Cuts all best things in the original in half and makes combat take place on a separate screen instead of the main view.

 

[Space Satan]

MoO2 had serious issues with macromanagement. Planetary Governor is the most serious one - should it be able to specialize on planety build order types and autoassign trade goods or housing macromanaging would be MUCH easier. In fact should MoO2 have SMAC governor system it would be almost ideal gamer UI wise.
Another flaw is that MoO2 suffered from balance problems. Traits like Creativeor Trancendant destroyed the balance completely and was concidered a cheat most of the time.
Yet the game had perfect combat mechanic and resource management aspect.

 

[whatevername]

havent played master of orion at all,its been praised as the pinnacle of space 4x starategy but erm you know.....it has some erm old grafik style

WHY ARE YOU PICKING THAT BASEBALL BAT?

still looks better than minecraft loloollolz

 

[Lone Wolf]

Playing SEIV with the Fusion mod.

It's midgame and my empire consists of ~150 planets. My closest ally (and eventual rival) has something like ~250. My fleet is made up of almost four hundred vessels (of varying tonnage from Frigate to Battle Cruiser) split up into twelve battlefleets and three reserve fleets. I'm at war with two empires, one of which had clearly superior tech until recently, and I was forced to retrofit my entire fleet on the fly (after an episode in which one of their recon vessels took out half of my battlefleet, in an insanely phyrric victory). Sixteen other empires remain undiscovered.

I have centralized shipyards set up, funnelling a steady supply of new ships, replacements and retrofits to the front lines, which are delineated by contested warp points. Planets are being terraformed, and slowly brought into the core of my empire - run by governors who take care of facility building.

Research proceeds apace, and forces me to continually renew my forces as new and better components are researched, prototyped and put into production.

If this game had better AI, it would be the best space 4X experience available. Nonetheless, I'm having a blast, even as it's getting micromanagement heavy.

Try it, if you haven't already.

 

[Silva]

Did they add some personality to it, or I will continue giving up and fireing up Alpha Centauri every time I try to play this series ?

 

[whatevername]

Playing SEIV with the Fusion mod.

It's midgame and my empire consists of ~150 planets. My closest ally (and eventual rival) has something like ~250. My fleet is made up of almost four hundred vessels (of varying tonnage from Frigate to Battle Cruiser) split up into twelve battlefleets and three reserve fleets. I'm at war with two empires, one of which had clearly superior tech until recently, and I was forced to retrofit my entire fleet on the fly (after an episode in which one of their recon vessels took out half of my battlefleet, in an insanely phyrric victory). Sixteen other empires remain undiscovered.

I have centralized shipyards set up, funnelling a steady supply of new ships, replacements and retrofits to the front lines, which are delineated by contested warp points. Planets are being terraformed, and slowly brought into the core of my empire - run by governors who take care of facility building.

Research proceeds apace, and forces me to continually renew my forces as new and better components are researched, prototyped and put into production.

If this game had better AI, it would be the best space 4X experience available. Nonetheless, I'm having a blast, even as it's getting micromanagement heavy.

Try it, if you haven't already.

Does it have turn based combat? I tried SEV and it had real-time combat and that just sucks.

 

[Lone Wolf]

TB combat, yes, but to be honest I haven't touched it in a long time (auto-resolve everything).

I'm the emperor, not some lowly admiral.

 

[Zarniwoop]

MoO2 had serious issues with macromanagement. Planetary Governor is the most serious one

What, you mean you DIDN'T want 50 000 spies built on that planet?

 

[Destroid]

I dunno how you guys cope with 100+ planets. Even 10-20 planets is a lot for me to manage, I don't like the way the pace of the game really crawls as the turns take so long to do everything.

Also, Stardrive 1 has very little in common with MoO.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It does start getting a bit overwhelming, yes. I think that's part of the charm, hand to heart.

On the other hand, most of those 150 planets are totally automated, after being colonized. In SEIV, the only planets that really need closer attention are the ones with shipyards, or with a shipyard base in orbit. And even that can all be managed from one screen.

 

[Elim]

I wish they would completely overhaul the icons when you zoom out.
Icons are just shitty on the eye. We need CLEAR counters. You need to instantly recognize what is a starbase, a planet or a ship.
Replacing these icons can't be so hard, but I know jack shit about *.dds files.