Quote Originally Posted by Zenicetus View Post
Ethical alignment is just there to make the diplomacy more challenging, and it's also an option to make some paths to victory a little easier. For example, if you play with randomized opponents, you don't know the alignment of your opponents in advance. Being able to shift your starting alignment, to ease diplomacy and trade, gain allies, or manipulate wars, is a huge benefit.
Yeah, but IMO it feels too artificial, in comparison with the very organic morality system in the first game, where your ethical alignments are simply defined by the choices you make. Being able to set your alignment makes it feel too much like a game mechanic.



Not true in the current (ToA) expansion. :) The current combat system favors larger ships for several reasons.... the gun firing system, and also the way ships gain experience/toughness by surviving battles. Spamming cannon fodder doesn't work, and I think that's a good thing, because it encourages spending resources on the military tech tree, as a balance against rushing other victory conditions.
I see.... I've only played the original GalCiv II, haven't been tempted to buy any of the expansions because I don't really like the direction the game is going. One of the most appealing aspects of the first game for me was a real sense of it being a 'sandbox'. In the first GalCiv I've seen all manners of alliances and match-ups: Torians with Drengin, Yor with Altarians, Arceans with Altarians..... in GalCiv II, the races have inherent penalties or bonuses in their relationships (the Torians have a penalty to diplomatic relations the Drengin, the Altarians have a bonus with humans, etc.). That, combined with the inherent race bonuses such as miniturisation for the Yor or diplomacy for the humans sorta ruins the sandbox aspect of the game. Though I guess that's just a personal quibble.


The problem there is the same problem we see in TotalWar and other games that include a tactical layer. It's very hard to program an AI that can't be abused by feints, like teasing apart a battle line with cavalry feints in M2:TW. And even that game includes a penalty for withdrawing from battle, as a sop to the AI's inability to deal with feint maneuvers. Anything that isn't symmetrical like that in AI ability can be abused by the human player.
Isn't that what having a good AI is supposed to solve, though? I would say that placing limitations on the player so that the AI isn't disadvantaged isn't quite the philosophy of the GalCiv series. ;)



As a response to people who disliked the combat system, the GalCiv series is more empire-building than space combat (though I guess GalCiv II's fancy graphics and "combat viewer" kinda misleads...) In fact, the game is at its most satisfying when not fighting at all. It's hard to beat funding a proxy war or having another race tip the balance in a war by joining you against a superior faction, because their trade depends on you. As such the limp combat system doesn't irk me overmuch.