Galactic Civilizations 2

[Zenicetus]

GalCiv2 is a great game, it's probably going to stay on my drive longer than anything else in the last year or two. Here's what I like about it:

* Very, very good strategic AI, because the developer doesn't split resources between the strategic and tactical level. It's tough to design a good tactical AI that a human player can't "game" by exploiting weaknesses for an easy win, so Stardock focuses on just doing a great strategic AI. I think GalCiv is the only game I've played recently where I can't be sure I'll win against an AI that has no programmed advantage in the game engine (other than being able to fine-tune economy settings better than I can, as a number cruncher). That's saying something. Usually as I get better at a game, I have to move into difficulty levels where the AI has hard-coded advantages in cash and resources.

* With the last expansion (Twilight of the Arnor), all the major races have unique elements in their tech trees. An expansion strategy that works for one alien race, won't work for another. You have to learn and use each race's abilities, and minimize their weaknesses.

* No invasive DRM, an excellent record of updates and patches (although that's going to taper off, now that the current game is near the end of the life cycle), and a pre-order/open beta for user feedback. All of that is worth supporting with my money.

* The current version of the game is at the end of this major version, with multiple expansions and it's very well-tested and solid, at this point.

* I like randomized map generation strategy games like this. Every game is a little different. Sometimes way different, and the latest expansion offers new ways to play (individualized tech trees). That's what keeps my playing, on and off, between other "major" game releases.

* Multiple victory conditions, not just military, and you can disable any you don't like.

Responding to some points made here:

There were actually other quibbles for me too, such as how you have to officially research an ethical alignment, which doesn't sound right to me.

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.

A cool thing about the game's combat, though, is that unlike most games where higher-tech/tier automatically means better, in GalCiv II spamming hordes of low-tier, low-cost cannon fodder is actually a legitimate strategy.

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.

Also, I wish that retreat would be a viable option -- I dislike strategy games where your only option in combat is to fight or die. (Whatever happened to discretion being the better part of valour? )

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.

One thing I dislike intensely about ship combat is it's all about a series of numbers. The battle scenes are worthless as they don't really show what is truly going on as no matter how big the fleets are, only one ship is targeted at a time - the strongest. It ruins the level of immersion when you know you go into a battle and your best ship is guaranteed to be toast at the end of it. There's no random chance a smaller ship will soak up the damage first, just your best. You have no option to protect any veterans in the fleet, other than to send them home, whereas in MO2 you'd sooner sacrifice your small ships than have one of your elite Titans get destroyed in the first attack round.

Have you played with the latest (last) Twlilight of the Arnor expansion? The combat system has been tweaked so it's not the same as earlier versions.

I also didn't enjoy the economy system in the game. It takes a long time to be profitable, and in the opening rounds you're just playing around with various sliders that control funding to various activities and going on a colony building rush.

I agree that's one aspect of the game that many may not like. It takes a fairly long time to get your economy rolling, and it's definitely not a game for someone who wants a quick fight with the neighbors, except on the smallest map sizes. The TotalWar games are better in that respect. You can fight your way through some immediate territorial expansion from the first move, while you're still building up from a primitive beginning. GalCiv2 is paced differently, with a slow start-up phase, but I still like it.