I would be unhappy with this. Currently, building up a large enough military force in GalCiv allows you to completely avoid war except for some random events. As players go, I'm not much of a warmonger, and I like it that if I want, I can stay out of wars.

As a matter of what, what you're suggesting almost comes across as a - for peaceful behavior, which is just silly (except maybe for races like the Drengin and Korath).

This might be difficult to implement. How do you define "poor tactical prowess"?

This I do agree with. In my current game the Drath and Altarians have both actually paid tribute for my "superior military strength" of 4 ships with 8 total missile attack.

Well, I do think that the AI should consider the fact that by the time they're finished warring with one civ, they may be vulnerable to attack by another, that they may very well get stabbed in the back by their so-called allies.

Building a decent military should prevent an immediate war declaration, I have no argument with that - but competing for the number one spot in military terms should generate animosity.

Not wanting spam to get the last word, I decided to throw in a comment here.

[Ed - the moderators deleted a spam post directly above this - so this is not any sort of dis of MarvinKosh whose post NOW is the one above this]

I read a lot of books.  One common element is that certain scenes or events make or break books for me, and I doubt I am alone in this respect.  Such scenes might include a big battle, or chase, or even a romantic sequence.  If the author botches such scenes, the book fails, just as a horror flick would when the scary thing turns out to be too obviously a man in a rubber suit, a al 1950s.

Such scenes generally need build-up or stage-setting, and that takes a lot of pages/words.  Readers or movie goers accept that pages or minutes will be necessary to get to the key scenes.

Space battles are those key scenes in games like this.  Yes, 4 X means the emphasis is on exploration and empire building, but the reason is to conquer and that means winning wars, hence battles.  Yes, one can win other ways, but for a game to be profitable, it must be bought and paid for by more than a very small sliver of potential players.  I, for one, would enjoy GC2 much more if I actually got to do something with all those ships for which I spent so many hours researching techs, building the yards, settling the planets, getting my empire up, and all that stuff.  SEIV made a decent gesture in this direction, with targeting priorities and formations, but GC2 has not.  I am not declaring what the exact answer should be, but I feel strongly that nothing is not enough.

Yes, space battle sequences and treatments would be chrome, and hence a burden on devs who might otherwise focus on infrastructure areas in the game.  However, if GC3 is not to be multiplayer, which is where a lot of the market is, then failing to build in such chrome will even further narrow the market.

I would certainly like to see tactical combat in GC3; it could always be turned off as a game setup option for those who don't like it.  Yes, it poses some challenges for the AI designer in terms of ship design and tactics, but it makes combat so much richer.  I still miss MOO2, where shields, armor, and point defense were each unique in their own way (shields had facings, and could get knocked down, but regenerated; armor was cheap, but ablative; point defense only worked on missiles, and had limited shots per round, etc).  Not to mention the ability to board and capture ships, and all of the unique technology paths to get enhancements to the weapons.  In GC2, the ships feel very generic in comparison.

My hope is that because GC2 was written with a longer-term lifespan than most games, that much of its engine will be able to be re-used for GC3.  That way the programmers can focus on implementing new features, rather than re-inventing the basic infrastructure that a 4X game needs.  Tactical combat would be my first choice for a "big" feature add.  Named heroes/advisers with custom bonuses would be another.  Special espionage missions and research projects would be a third, and switching from a square grid to hexes would be a fourth.  Give me those features, and an AI that can play them intelligently, and I'll happily shell out $50.

While I have more to say on the subject of tactical combat, about your other features: 2 and 3 are good (actually, 2 is a must-have, particularly if you can mod the 'heroes' and 3 is more "would be nice"), but what's the big deal with hexagonal grids, anyway?

Diagonals.  Using a square grid, moving along the diagonal is almost 50% faster than it should be.  Using a hex grid eliminates that irregularity.

Another possibility would be to go to eliminate the grid entirely and go with a continuous (real number) position system.

Sins of a Solar Empire has tactical battle...I believe.

That is another game I was looking into getting... But first I will be getting GalCiv II.

I'd be ok with that, as long as they also include a fully featured combat viewer like in GC2...

My end line is this: if making tactical combat will detract in some way from the strategic part of the game, I want no part of it. If Stardock can manage to integrate tactical combat without overshadowing other aspects of the game, and with equal (well, close enough) balance between letting the AI handle battles and fighting them yourself, I will gladly pay extra for it. I am not into GalCiv for tactics, but if tactics can be made to work as part of the game (and not the main focus of the game, as in some other space 4X games), then I'm fine.

Incidentally, like the last poster, I would also want the option to view battles that you're not playing out.

I just noticed that there's an existing old thread on this exact topic, and suggest routing further replies there.

For me at least I don't care for 'tactical' combat per se (I'm the God-Emperor! If I'm close enough to personally guide combat I'm close enough to have a lifechanging hyperfusion experience.), but I would like a system for giving standing orders that affected the way automated combat proceeded. Being able to give proper orders, that defenseless ships will fall back, battleships will engage, attempt to salvage a limping retreat, et al.

*THAT* I would like.

Jonnan

I think that is what SEIV did.

That is, one could choose to play with turn-by-turn tactical control of battles, but one could also have them played out according to pre-scripted preferences.  These would be like standing orders one might issue to admirals.  For examples, ships should engage at max range, ships should fire at the strongest ships first, ships should attempt to capture weaponless ships.  Others included specific formation directives, like battle line or blunt wedge.

Those are the tactical control level that I would like, as they can also be pre-scripted for AIs by Modders.

I remember the first large battle I played against a mod race in SEIV.  The modder had scripted the fleet to loose a tremendous max range missile volley right out of the Harrington novels.  I had organized my research around a different weapon type that was stronger but only at somewhat lower ranges.  My point defense was smashed aside as my fleet tried to get within range and the result was gorgeously grim!  I promptly went onto the SEIV boards to congratulate the guy.

Brad and the devs need to remember this article by Brad:

http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/88762

Specifically this:  "...But Galactic Civilizations has always been a strategic game.  It's never been a game about tactics.  It's literally a clash of civilizations.  You're building a civilization and you want to see how it is able to compete against other civilizations."

Please NO tactical battles in GC3...!    

From the ACME Buggy Whip official history (the company shut down in 1922):

"We make buggy whips and buggy whips only."

I disagree very strongly that having tactical battles would detract from the game.

I liked GC2 a lot, but I think it would have been a lot funner had their been a tactical battle option. MOO2 was one of my most favorite games ever and I have yet to find a space based game that does tactical battles like they did. Sure it always made more sense to fight than autoresolve, but I think that there is a way to have both in.

If GC3 doesn't have tactical battles I don't know if I'll get it TBH.