Galactic Civilization

Create account
Login
Downloads
NewsGroup
Community
Purchase
Galactic Forum
Strategies
Mods
Empires
Do you still think GalCiv 1 is fun even with GalCiv II out?
758 votes
1- Yes
2- No


How does Galactic Civilizations compare to Master Of Orion 2
  Search:   
Go to Bottom         Go to Bottom
by Citizen Eelusion - 5/10/2005 9:19:25 AM

Since MOO2 i've been playing Alpha Centauri, Pax Imperia, Rebellion, Reach For The Stars, MOO3 (biggest letdown ever), Birth Of The Federation, almost every 4x game i know, without finding something that comes close to MOO2.
Now i just bought GalCiv (budget version /10 €) and reviews sound promising, so do you think it's better than MOO2 or not ?

#1  by Citizen Atrahasis - 5/10/2005 11:41:14 AM

With the exceptions of GC not being multiplayer and not being able to customize your ship stats, most definitely yes I think GalCiv is better than MoO2.Much; so much so I honestly don't even miss the two exceptions I earlier stated.

            
#2  by Citizen Chipperoo - 5/10/2005 9:32:06 PM

I've never played MoO in any variant, but I LOOOVVVEEE this game. You'll no doubt have many questions...feel free to ask and you're likely to get a very good answer here.

                          
#3  by Veteran Evil Roy - 5/11/2005 1:19:10 AM

better....



                      
#4  by Citizen Walldorf2000 - 5/11/2005 1:25:57 AM

I liked the MOO2 atmosphere, the spies, the variable tech tree and the ship design. But on the long run GC is more variable and more fun. The main difference it the AI which is much more sophisticated.

Conclusion: both are great games but GC is my favorite

                              
#5  by Citizen Chippoka - 5/11/2005 6:30:48 PM

Since MOO2 i've been playing Alpha Centauri, Pax Imperia, Rebellion, Reach For The Stars, MOO3 (biggest letdown ever), Birth Of The Federation, almost every 4x game i know, without finding something that comes close to MOO2.

Now i just bought GalCiv (budget version /10 ) and reviews sound promising, so do you think it's better than MOO2 or not ?


Wow, sounds like me and my history

I'd say AP (GC) is better in the overall of things. That is a heartly felt complement to it's creators. That isn't to say I still don't have MOO II on the hard-drive ... and that I don't have a few big gripes:

I don't like the lack of structure to turns. MOO II is very superior in that regard. AI ships should not be moving in my turn if to cause the user trouble in managing the tactics of the main space map screen -- giving ship move orders, etc. I can't stand being lead around on a leash during MY turn from place to place by the game engine. When I'm doing a battle, after giving move orders to a ship for a fight, the game jumps to some where else in the universe failing to let me deal with all the ships in the area I was dealing with! It pisses me off to no end when it does that in a batte region. There needs to be a "NEXT SHIP" button in addittion to that automatic feature to solve that problem. That nasty "slow down graphic" bug of explosions, turning ships, and battles, still needs fixed.

Also, the movement algorithm/proto-call also is terrible. On a modern high-end PC such as I use and as many players use now days, movement should never slow-up if there is more than a few ships in a stack... and, there needs to be a way to hit the space bar to force-move the ship (or group) to the destination without showing them crawl like turtles across the sector(s). I think real time movement is fine, but NOT at expense of making the user wait in a unreasonable manner. That slow-up grabage causes the player to take longer than necessary to play the game.

The MOO II planet system management tabular data screen is sorely needed in AP (GC). What is offered is very limited in scope and capability.


[Message Edited]

      
#6  by Diplomat Peace Phoenix - 5/12/2005 2:12:18 AM

AI ships should not be moving in my turn if to cause the user trouble in managing the tactics of the main space map screen -- giving ship move orders, etc. I can't stand being lead around on a leash during MY turn from place to place by the game engine. When I'm doing a battle, after giving move orders to a ship for a fight, the game jumps to some where else in the universe failing to let me deal with all the ships in the area I was dealing with! It pisses me off to no end when it does that in a batte region. There needs to be a "NEXT SHIP" button in addittion to that automatic feature to solve that problem

Not sure to correctly understand the problem. By AI ships are you refereing to AI owned ships or your owned ships on auto pilot?

I haven't any problem about AI owned ships movements since I always ask in the option to confirm end of turn.

BTW, defining a correct "NEXT SHIP" can be very tricky in a battle

                          
#7  by Citizen Eelusion - 5/12/2005 11:49:11 AM

...seems to be a civilized place...

#8  by Citizen Chippoka - 5/12/2005 1:02:37 PM

Ya, I think I mistated that Phoenix... I need to watch an see if I pressed the TURN key. I have not watched the details as close as I should after pressing the "Turn" button; hmm, being more actually into playing the game. I hit the Turn button when in a bit of hurry, and the program will then have me go back and address any of my ships for movement if I hadn't done so; but, while doing that, some AI owned ships move as well. I guess it really isn't that annoying. Erm, I really shouldn't hit that TURN key until ready. My bust.

Yet... I think I'm trying to use the TURN button as a sort of "Next Ship" command. It works pretty well that way if I haven't given move orders to all my ships yet (those not on auto-pilot). So my frustration is due to my mis-use of that key's application... wishing AI ships would move only after all valid moves of my own ships are perform or ignored. BTW, I wish there were a "Ignore" command for ships to ignor nearby ships in a way that I'm not told about them; erm, going back to address lots of mines that I've placed simply because an enemy ship moved near a bunch of them is a waste of the user's time. In the same vein, it would be nice if there were some global commands (configurable if applicable) that, for example, would tell all currently spaced based and/or or planet docked ships seek out nearby enemy ships for attack purposes; re-evaluated nearest target each turn automatically.

Yep, perhaps defining a "Next Ship" feature might be tricky, but I think it can be done pretty easy since it basicly already does it when the player hits the "Turn" key as I just descibed. All that is needed is some kind of keyed "wait" for user confirmation before proceeding to the next user's ship in question by the game engine.

Example of a turn during the "movement phase" (I wish):

User may select either "Move" or selects a ship to move.

User decides to hit "Move" button.

Pop-up appears of global commands:

"Next" or "Revisit" or "Ignore" or "Hold" or "Attack"

[Next = begin assigning and/or modifying move orders to ships -- a ship appears on the screen that needs attention.]

[Revisit = "Revisit all ships and ship stacks regardless of movement status of previous turn"]

[Ignore = carry out all valid move orders, ignor all remaining ships not assigned move orders; place such ships in "Gaurd" mode.]

[Hold = all user ships are in lock-down only for the current turn: no movement or combat, except in defense; i.e., they are all put into "Gaurd" mode. The game engine effectively skips the user's movement turn.]

[Attack = all the user's space borne ships attack nearest enemy targets, pre-defined or not. Confimation permitted: Y/N as battles are initiated; ships are subject to direct user movement commands.]

User selects "Next"

Ship H appears - user hits "Pass," then hits "Next."

Ship X appears - user gives a move order which results in combat with a nearby enemy ship. Combat is confirmed (Y/N) and resolved. User then hits "Next."

Ship Y appears - user hits "Ignore" (game engine never returns to such ship unless directed by user directly or by global command), then "Next."

Ship A appears - user hits "Gaurd." The game engine only returns to this ship IF an enemy gets too close (user definable); hits "Next."

Ship K appears - user hits "Sentry." Ship attacks only if an enemy of a predefined class(s) comes too close. Ship is not revisited until such event or by later issued global movement commands or direct selection.

Ship N appears - user hits "Unsupervised Auto Attack" -hit "Next." Ship move and attack. Attacks are still confirmed by the user prior to execution. The order, however, remains unconfirmed from turn to turn.

Ship X appears - user hits "Supervised Auto Attack" - hits, "Next." Ship moves and attacks. Ship will appear next turn for move order-attack confirmation. Attacks are still confirmed by the user prior to execution.

Ship H re-appears due to ealier "Pass" selection by the user. User decides to gives a move order.

User hits "Turn." Game engine replies, "Ignore unmoved ships this turn?" User: hits "Yes," after which AI players do thier turns. Or... user hits "No," and the game engine returns the user back to the movement phase of his or her current turn.

NOTES:

1. Stack ships are ALL assigned the same move orders as if one ship; and groups more than ten only appear on the screen as a single ship represented by an icon of the player's choice (say, 20 graphic icon to choose from in a pop-up where the user also can provide a battle group name) - vice the ugly mess they currently appear when stacked, often moving needlessly slower than if otherwise.

2. Can't think of something else at the moment, lol.




      
#9  by Diplomat Peace Phoenix - 5/12/2005 2:14:31 PM

For such improvements, you really should post them on the galciv2 site.

                          
#10  by Citizen Chippoka - 5/12/2005 5:14:14 PM

I take it they don't follow what's said here much?

As far a GCII, I haven't got it yet and am clueless if anything I might say even remotely could apply.

      
#11  by Diplomat Peace Phoenix - 5/13/2005 1:33:44 AM

I take it they don't follow what's said here much?

Yes. You should know that GCI was first release in march 2003 with one year of free upgrade. We are in 2005, and all developpers that were on GCI are now on GCII.

As far a GCII, I haven't got it yet and am clueless if anything I might say even remotely could apply.

Since GCII is in development, only those who have preordered or are owner of an active totalgaming.net account can play with the beta (the lastest available beta was in March and was essentially aimed to test the 3D engine).

And on the GCII forum http://www.galciv2.com/Forums.aspx Link, lots of ideas are thrown, even from people that don't have access to the beta. Some proposed ideas are to change things that people didn't like in GCI. I don't remeber having seen a post about managing ships.

Your input will surely be useful for GCII. And don't forget that the game is taking shape during the beta. It is always simpler to make a change in the early stage of a game than after it has been released
[Message Edited]

                          
#12  by Citizen Chippoka - 5/13/2005 5:53:18 AM

I'll post it over there a little later. Thanks for the tip and link.

Must rush off to work... the "daily grind" as it were...

I didn't realize the game was still so young



      
#13  by Citizen Jaycephus - 5/20/2005 2:14:40 PM

I'm still in my first few games, so I won't make a judgement yet, but it took me a few days to get my head around GC, and came dangerously close to just dropping it.

Maybe I've had a non-typical experience, but my first jump into GalCiv was bad. I quickly learned that the random factor on planet placement can make or break a game, and that a new player cannot just jump into playing anything above normal, and hope to even have an outside chance of winning. So the first few games I tried to play were disasters with almost no 'fun factor', partly due to lots of bad luck in the random galaxy generation.

Installing the expansion allowed me to play the campaigns, which also allows me to start with a balanced galaxy, and to restart with the same galaxy if the opponent is too smart for me the first time around. So for me, playing the campaigns included with the AP expansion was the best way to start. Since Brad is now working on GCII, I would highly recommend including campaigns with the initial release, and modifying the 'random' galaxy generator to create a more evenly distributed galaxy so that the chance of being in a virtually deserted corner of the galaxy is eliminated. Or implement an uncertainty factor where a system's planet quality cannot be truly known until the planet is visited by someone, player or AI, and that the determination of that system's planet quality is made at the point of discovery so that the discoverer's luck and difficulty handicapping is taken into consideration. I'm thinking of a type of game that might self-balance a bit through the exploration stage.

My experience with my current game, in which I have actually lasted long enough to reach the end of the colonization stage is fairly close to my memories of MOO2 in terms of general gameplay, the exception being that I believe ships are more expensive and less diverse in GC, and there is no separate tactical fleet battle interface. Of course, due to the lower diversity and smaller size of fleets in GC, there is not really a need for a separate tactical fleet battle mode.

      
#14  by Citizen Phier - 5/22/2005 11:57:54 PM

GC is hard to get into the first time, at least for me.

While MOO2 has some things I really liked, like the ship combat (even if they fubared it by not having initative like moo I had) and planet assimilation, GC is a better game.

Its better because of the AI. MooII had a pretty pathetic AI and only by letting it cheat massively did you have even close to a challanging fight.

The AI in GC isn't perfect, but its a world above Moo2.


          
#15  by Citizen ioticus - 5/23/2005 3:43:33 PM

The original MOO is much better than both MOO2 and GC in my opinion. If you haven't played the original MOO you owe it to yourself to try it using DOSBox.

#16  by Diplomat Peace Phoenix - 5/23/2005 3:59:11 PM

Well, MOO have some problems: the stack of 32K small ships for example.

                          
#17  by Citizen ioticus - 5/23/2005 4:01:59 PM

Well, MOO have some problems: the stack of 32K small ships for example.



I don't see that as a problem. One of the things I liked about it was you could have huge fleets. It really felt epic.



#18  by Diplomat Peace Phoenix - 5/24/2005 2:34:36 AM

I don't see that as a problem. One of the things I liked about it was you could have huge fleets. It really felt epic.

perhaps. But having 32K of small ships was pretty annoying if you haven't the correct design against it.


                          
#19  by Citizen webnavigator - 5/24/2005 7:37:21 PM

I'd like to think Galciv to be a game of it's own. Every single pro MOO2 gamer I've seen are always comparing everything else to that one game. Eventually some people will just realize that Moo2 is Moo2 and Galciv is Galciv.....

                      
#20  by Citizen Eelusion - 5/30/2005 8:26:29 AM

this game isn't too easy to get into but thats half the fun...like it's no fun to get a girl instantly...that doesn't mean i have sex with my games...uh well perhaps mentaly...omg...

so Moo2 is Moo2 and Galciv is Galciv... I will have to think about that...compute...done.
Ok they are 2 different games, but which is more fun (=better) is a matter of taste

<<   (1)   >> 
   Page 1 of 1   

Go to Top    Go Back to Message Board    Go to Top
To be able to post something you have to become a member
Click here!



Copyright 1995-2020 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.