Removed

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Marine Mike]

I personally loved MoO3, but GalCiv II is exactly what you're looking for if you want a more recent Master of Orion with similar gameplay to the first two. I always loved being able to customize your own ships with the size and weapons you want, and this takes it to a new level with being able to essentially "build" your ships to look like whatever you want. Anyways its a nice review, and I couldn't agree more with your opinion of the game AI.

 

[veloper]

I thought Galciv 2 was okay, but the game has too many problems to ignore.

Here's some stuff the review could have mentioned:

1 the start of the game is SLOW and boring, because all you can(or should) do is rush colonies and then build up the economy, since you cannot conquer or be conquered without mid-level tech.

2 the AI is retarded and cheats even at lower levels to compete

3 attempts by stardock to reduce micro, actually resulted in even more micro management, like manually cancelling all building upgrades (upgrades are often a bad thing in galciv2) on every planet everytime to discover a new tech and swapping planetary focus or even adjusting the sliders to reduce production overflow.


Still the only alternative is Space Empires 4 or SE5 and that series suffers from lousy AI aswell (and bugs).

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Marine Mike]

It still commited some mistakes, like continuosly opting for ships with lasers and shields when my rocket based cruisers were ripping his fleet to shreds, but on the whole it gave a positive impression, and it's sure as hell not the worst A.I. out there. I'll assume that it gets even better when you pick smarter opponents.

I've noticed that a lot, but even with a medium level opponent I was caught off guard. After a short peace treaty to rebuild my forces I once again sallied forth into enemy space only to find that my opponent had refit his entire fleet to use point-defense instead of armor and my missile armed fighters no longer had a huge advantage. So the AI will "learn" and adapt to your weapons, but sometimes the time it takes is too long to notice it since they're dead.

 

[Trotgar]

Nicely written review (as usual).

The text and the screenshots gave a good general impression of the game, but there could've been a bit more info on things like the races/civilizations and how the combat system works, though the review may turn boring if all these kind of things are explained in a too great detail.

But, like I said, the review is nicely written and is pretty good. You certainly got me intrigued with this game (like you got me intrigued with Etherlords II, too. Damn, I have to find that game or search for a demo or something).

So, keep 'em coming.

 

[veloper]

I thought Galciv 2 was okay, but the game has too many problems to ignore.

Here's some stuff the review could have mentioned:

1 the start of the game is SLOW and boring, because all you can(or should) do is rush colonies and then build up the economy, since you cannot conquer or be conquered without mid-level tech.

As usually your entitled to your own opinion, but here's a few things you should consider:

Ad 1) Yes the start of the game consists of creating the bare necessities for more advanced concepts like warfare, but the same thing rings true for most any RTS or turn-based strategy game. Starcraft starts you off with nothing but main building and a few workers, but that doesn't make the game boring. As with Galactic Civilizations II, what you do with this early phase greatly affects the overall outcome, and since its a lot longer than a single Starcraft battle, it should come as no surprise that this starting phase is also a lot longer. I'll give you that it's not very exciting and (due to its turn based nature) you aren't exactly rushed either. Also it gives an early chance for specialisation, since you could always rush one way, like ignoring civil research for sake of being able to invade planets.

Yeah and that's another thing I didn't even mention yet: the colony phase does indeed greatly affect the the outcome. So much that a succesful rush can win you the game even if you play a mediocre game after that.
I don't think comparisons to SC are valid; zerg rushes happen in the early game.

Then after every planet on the map is colonized, you spend the time (if you play optimally) building tax markets on your larger planets, ferrying colonists to the tax farms and researching up to extreme entertainment and star democracy to make even more credits, because nothing can hurt you until some AI finally techs Advanced troop mods and that may take a long while (like 100 turns).

Ad 2) Yes, the A.I. is retarded. When you set it to retarded. You can scale it down a lot, but when you decide to go for the most brutal A.I. available you'll probably be surprised to find that it isn't half bad. I usually pick a slightly above medium setting and for the most part they govern okay, make the most of their economy and their actions follow some form of logic, even in diplomatic negotiations. It still commited some mistakes, like continuosly opting for ships with lasers and shields when my rocket based cruisers were ripping his fleet to shreds, but on the whole it gave a positive impression, and it's sure as hell not the worst A.I. out there. I'll assume that it gets even better when you pick smarter opponents.

It will likely not surprise you that the developers insist that their A.I. does in fact, not cheat, but GameStar magazine carried out some neutral research on the subject, and judging by their evidence the A.I. does really doesn't cheat. It may appear like it, but all actions follow the rules established by gameplay mechanics and it doesn't just spawn ships or create buildings.

I got the lastest patch (but no expansions) and the AI clearly cheats even on "intelligent" difficulty and lower and it doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

The AI doesn't even dedicate large planet to markets, let alone do a pure science or production economy (which is by far the most optimal way to play) and still the AI manages to upgrade it's buildings to higher tiers than is possible before going bankrupt many times over.

The fleets are larger than the AI can pay for too, but they lose anyway, because the fleets always disperse.
Often you can capture all AI planets and NOT ONE has a positive balance (until I fix the planet).

Ad 3) This one has me a bit confused. For one, how exactly do you think that was even remotely worth mentioning? Maybe it's just my inferior play style, but thus far I haven't found upgrades to be a bad thing, granted they clog up the build line and push back other projects, but those are rarely so important that you need to save upgrades for later. Besides, do you really think it would be better the other way round? Having to go through every planet and every building every time you discover a new technology? And what does the rest of the paragraph even mean? It has me perplexed. I was already going on a limb and assumed you meant "everytime you discover", not "everytime to discover", because otherwise the sentence makes even less sense.

Most upgrades to planet improvements are bad until the late game because while they produce more, they cost even more than that.
Production per Credit actaully becomes lower, for each upgrade to a fab or lab.

Labs especially should be expanded horizontally first (more tiles, more planets) instead of vertically (upgrading).
Fabs should be concentrated on production planets and you should never research Industrial sectors (the highest).

Because every improvment gets an upgrade order automaticly when you acquire the corresponding
tech, you have to manually cancel each order on each improvement (or risk destroying your economy). A nuisance.