Having played a substantial amount of galactic war, I think it has potential but at the moment it lacks substance to keep me coming back to it. The galactic map needs more features, and the player needs to be making more choices in order to have a compelling strategy game. One example of a game that does a strategic and a tactical level side-by-side well is XCOM: Enemy Unknown. The key is to have events on one level have impact on the other. To make the player's tactical choices have long-term impact, and to make the player's strategic choices give them a benefit in each battle. Commanders In the galactic war game, I would like to see your number of Commanders as the primary index of how strong your side is, and act as your primary pieces to move about the galactic map. Acquiring more commanders gives you more pieces to move about the galactic map, and allows you to make stronger moves by deploying multiple commanders to a specific place. Potentially, each Commander your side controls allows you to attack one system per turn. However you will also need Commanders to station on your worlds. Only systems with a defending Commander will cause a battle to occur- if one of your commanders attacks a system that has no enemy commander to defend, no battle occurs and the system is conquered. Every time one of your commanders is destroyed, that commander is permanently gone from your pool of available commanders. And likewise for your enemies; they have a limited pool of commanders which decreases by one every time you destroy a commander. Commanders are also how you lose the galactic war. This can be done either with a "main" commander that must not be lost, or by having any commander suffice, and the player loses when all that player's commanders are lost. Commanders need to be quite difficult to construct on the strategic map. Constructing a commander should take multiple turns on the galactic map even using highly developed systems. Planetary Development I think the most important thing to build on is what it means for players to own worlds for extended periods of time. This system can afford to be quite abstract, but planets should be developed and the player should obtain strategic benefits on the galactic war level from owning and developing planets. I propose giving each system a "Resource" value based on how many metal spots there are in the system. Systems with higher resource values will develop faster, and also have a higher ceiling for how much development is possible on that system. One way that systems can be desirable is that they are resource-rich. Note that metal spots can be destroyed, such as by smashing planets together, which will permanently reduce the resource value of the system. Each system will also have an Industry value, which indicates how heavily developed the system is. Higher levels of Industry will give you local advantages if that system is attacked, and also allow that system to produce galactic map assets more quickly. The Industry of every system increases gradually over time. Each turn in the galactic war, each system's Resource value is added to a running count of resources going towards the next level of development. Each level of Industry is exponentially more expensive than the preceding level. Essentially similar to how cities in Civ games grow in size using food. Industry is productive infrastructure (factories, etc.) and also adds its development level to your development, but can also be used to construct big, strategically significant projects. The player can then task systems to construct one of a few different important projects that have strategic implications. If the player instructs a planet to build one of these projects, its Resource value will still go towards increasing the system's Industry level, but the system's Industry will instead go towards the project, slowing the planet's development because with no project that Industry would go towards more development. The first project is a Commander- the system will use its industry to make a Commander instead of more development. When completed, a Commander will appear in that system and will be stationed there. Systems could eventually have several other types of projects that would have strategic impact on the Galactic War, perhaps interstellar teleporters or sensors or fleets of ships. There are lots of possibilities. If a planet is successfully invaded, all its industry is destroyed. The conqueror obtains a planet with zero development, and can/will begin developing it again. Battle Gameplay The battle gameplay in the galactic war context needs quite a lot of work. Early in the war you will have only one factory which can make it extremely impractical, or even impossible, to win a battle. For example, trying to kill an enemy commander that is underwater using a vehicle commander is extremely annoying. You basically must wait until the AI walks into your army since you can't go after him. Furthermore, if players are ever going to be factory-restricted, then each factory needs quite a lot more tools. Raiders, artillery, alpha-strike units, and most other roles cannot be restricted to certain factories if sometimes you will simply not be able to build different factories. This is especially important for giving the player access to a unit that is actually reasonably efficient at killing enemy commanders. Currently the only play is to construct a large blob and just A-move, and to keep repeating the process if necessary until the commander is destroyed. There isn't a way to do hunt commanders intelligently or efficiently, especially if you are factory-restricted. You just hit it with a hammer as many times as it takes. Techs It seems the way players gain an advantage from conquering systems is by exploring and acquiring "techs" that give bonuses, factories, and so on. I don't like this system. They are totally random, don't actually create any choices for the player, and just make a particular battle stranger, not better. Suppose instead that techs were created as projects using planet industrialization to produce them. Once created, they would be unlocked for use on any commander. But each commander would only be able to take a certain number of techs into a particular battle. Instead of having global techs that are collected randomly, the player builds techs to select which ones they want, and can equip one or more commanders with those techs. Once researched, a tech would be usable by as many commanders as the player wishes. Techs could also be replaced by superior techs, with more powerful techs in the same line becoming exponentially more expensive, and therefore more time-consuming to obtain. Although each tech can only be assigned to one commander once, an upgraded tech could also be used alongside the lower-level tech, allowing players to choose to specialize and obtain diminishing returns from stacking. Such as stacking a +10% bonus with a lower-level +5% bonus to the same stat. Each commander's loadout would be determined by the techs assigned to that commander. A certain "basic" build list would be available to every commander. But in order to build on this list, techs must be assigned. Or, alternatively, those tech slots could be used for techs that give buffs instead of factories or build options. In order to bring more techs into a battle, you bring more commanders. If each commander can carry three techs, then a strike force of five commanders would be able to bring fifteen techs total. However, using a large number of commanders aggressively has disadvantages as well, making your systems' defenses weaker and risking multiple commanders in the same battle. Conclusion The Galactic War looks pretty and has a lot of potential. However at the moment it lacks depth and strategic choice for the player. Giving the player interesting choices to make should be a high priority to make the galactic war more interesting. I think the best approach to do this is to have many Commanders which act as strategic pieces that move about the galaxy, either alone or in groups, attacking enemy systems or defending your own. And to have conquered systems contribute to the war effort, such as by constructing commanders or other strategic assets. The current Tech system is very random and arbitrary, and should be replaced with a system that allows the player more choice to design a coordinated war strategy on the galactic level which will affect how they play in each battle, and which allows players to choose to play battles differently.
I very much agree with all of the things I had the patience to read. (which was most of it, so unless you hid stuff in the conclusion, I agree with everything!)
Pretty much sums it up. I'd imagine a lot of these suggestions are planned. The current Galactic War is just a first pass. We'll get there.
The problem I see with the comments about developing your systems is that it kinda undos the point of commander based warfair. The idea was to remove logistics other then what you have on the warfront, but the reintroduction of permanent system side infrastructure just seems to be kinda, silly to me. I mean, just upright destroying your forces is also kinda weird, but I don't think having full system wide bases would be all that fair to an attacker. So I feel like any system development that goes on, goes to the creation of new sub-commanders, and building a single stronghold to monitor the place until a enemy arrives, leaving the rest of the metal to be reclaimed into new sub-commanders.
I don't think he means the captured systems to actually have structures on them, I think it's just the bonuses the system would give.
I think tech should still be acquired through systems, but, the system shows which tech it has pre-exploration. The point of this is to open up some strategic choices for the player, there may be two things the player wants: T2 tanks, or a 10% economy boost, something like that. Now, either one may be an easier grab, or even the same difficulty to get to, but which one would you put over the other in acquiring; which is more important to you? Limited tech slots gives more room for meta strategies on which combination you think is the best, which is good. However, special bonuses to units and such may make more sense in another slot, you'd have a little menu showing off all your potential bonuses, when you attack an enemy planet it would ask you something along the lines of: "Which bonus would you like for this battle?", and you'd select one of them, be it: 50% economy boost, 50% storage, bonuses to bots, bonuses to tanks, etc... There could even be a tech that allows you to bring two bonuses into battle. The catch is, however, you may only use a bonus- once, so you can't become the most OP being in the galaxy. AI should also have the ability to bring bonuses into warfare, and there may even be the possibility in capturing certain systems giving certain bonuses, no matter what. These bonuses would be minuscule at best, but give even more incentive to strategy in which system you go for in your attack. Something simple, like a 10% economy boost if you take over some system that was apparently a mining facility in the lore, or something. AI would also be able to fight back against you, recapture systems, and they even get the same bonuses you'd get for that particular system if you had it. (Only that particular faction of course.) Also, it may be reasonable to have a system where one of the only ways to defend one of your systems is to give up one of your AI sub commanders, this will either be a randomized answer on who wins, most likely having variables such as tech put in, or maybe even an actual simulated fight, just to remove the luck factor. You'd give up an AI commander, yes, but you could be saving one of your most prized systems in the process. This is just my two cents, I too would like at least some of the randomized events taken out in favor of some more refined concepts, a lot of ideas did come from Battlefront 2, I can't lie.
Excellent concept, +1. The galactic map decinitely needs more strategic depth in order to keep it's hold on our hearts. Look at empire at war. I still play it to date.
The thing about Empire at War is that it isn't turn-based, which is actually why I liked it so much. I kinda was hoping for PA to do the same, but turns out (ha!) it didn't. I still like the idea of doing it real-time. It'll work out. In EaW it did. Even if it remains turn-based, I would still absolutely love it if had all those features mentioned in this thread. So yes please, bring it on!
the 4X strategy game twist is exactly what Galactic War needs. Or I preconceived from its first mention. "1 Gas Giant: +3 energy per turn" Commanders moving in with detachment units, like "basic bot platoon" that you have to construct and move with your commanders to engage a fortified base. Or tele reinforcements you construct in the strategic level to send in the skirmishes. Predeveloped systems to defend or pre-built attack forces could lend itself to having quicker skirmishes. Or even game-enders like Metal planets with Hyper-drive so you can drop them into systems with unit cannons blazing. I always imagined the Galactic War would be a strategic enough meta game to be interesting with "skip battle" switched on.
I think that galactic war is elegant in it's simplicity. I would hate to see it turn into an empire building game that is bogged down by logistics and resource management. I think that you should be able to create your own faction and color scheme for the Galactic war and not be forced to use one of the others. I would love to see a kind of madlibs type mechanic to document your ascension to being the dominant faction in the Galaxy. That way at the end of the war you would have a narrative of how your tactical, strategic, and ideological approach proved to be superior in every way. I would like to be able to name my sub-commanders when I find them. As well as give each commander a tactical priority list to guide them in their conquests. I agree that the sub commanders should be able to deploy independent of your primary commander, and they should be lost to you if they are defeated. I don't want to see what tech is in a system before I get there and frankly it would require a lot of exposition to explain how it would even be possible for a commander to scan that far ahead. I think of the sub-commanders as salvaged and reprogrammed versions of the commanders you defeat, or commanders that you stumble upon and are able to revive. I feel that only the progenitors should have the technology to actually build a commander from nothing. I think there should be some perks that are based on the number of systems you have control of. For example, an efficiency perk that grants 2% reduced metal and/or energy cost for every system you control. I think there should be some perks that are specific to a system. Like one that grants a bonus as long as you control the specific system. I think that all of the AI commanders should start out with minimal tech just like you do and then gain new tech via movement, the same way you do. It would create some very interesting match ups. I feel that keeping the time and effort involved in a galactic war to a minimum actually promotes a more enjoyable experience. It allows for a lot of fun in just about 30 minutes of play time, and does not punish you as much if you lose a war. And finally, before some one finds it necessary to respond to each of my suggestions with a couple paragraphs for each one, this is my opinion, nothing more. Galactic war is not complete and many of my suggestions and many of the others are likely slated to get into it in some form or another. In the mean time I am on my 4th pass and I am still having a heck of a lot of fun with it.
i think the galaxy background should be different with each type. Small = small looking galaxy, medium = medium looking galaxy, large = large looking galaxy, and Uber = huge looking galaxy. currently all sizes look somehow the same.
But if we are aiming for empire at war, NOT FORCES OF CORRUPTION. ******* bribery system of the Zahn Consortium drags the game out every ******* time..... Or the empire that keeps attacking the same ******* place with all it's might every two minutes. Or alternatively make the AI so it doesn't attack the same area constantly! If it attacks somewhere and makes no headway, it should probe somewhere else. Edit: wow I used the F-word a lot in this one, goes to show how annoying those things are.
I agree with your ideas about personalization for factions and naming. You have a bunch of other good ideas too. I don't think the AI should start with minimal tech as well and move up. I think it makes more send that as you progress across the system they have more tech. I thought it felt this way when I was playing it. The further in I was, the more advanced their units were. If they progress on their own, how does it happen in the background? 1 turn each? Then you would always meet in the middle. I also felt I could sit down and play 1 or 10 steps at a time.
I have been looking forward for a while to the Galactic Game and am enjoying playing it but have found my last game exceedingly frustrating because of the pure tech randomness. For the first half of the game I was unable to find any slot expansions and accordingly was forced to throw out usable technology because of the the three tech limit. Later I came upon a long series of slot expansions and no tech to fill them. Now most of the tech I come across is unusable. I had chosen to throw out basic aircraft for example when limited to three slots (Which, I admit was probably a dumb choice, but it was either that or an assistant commander.) Later I twice received advanced aircraft and aircraft fabrication boost, but was unable to use them because of the lack of basic aircraft. Twice I received basic vehicle technology, which I already had since the beginning of the game. I've received duplicate technology several times. I received naval efficiency upgrades, without any naval tech. Finally I got both the Halley and nuke tech as well as the efficiency upgrade to use them, but have no advanced fabricators to start using them. Basically each battle becomes exceedingly repetitive because I am still using the same basic tank spamming I used at the first system, although the tech I have been able to use (multiple assistant commanders and building efficiency upgrades), have made me stronger. Now this was the result of basically several poor choices on my part and bad luck with the tech dice, but it suggests a possible route of improvement through certain rules that would guide the pure randomness such as the following: 1) If a person would be offered an advanced tech or a fabrication improvement, but does not currently possess the basic tech, offer them that instead. Conversely, if a person already has a basic tech, offer them one of the above improvements instead. 2) If a person has all their slots full, it should be more likely that they would receive an additional slot, also if a person already has two empty slots, they should not receive a third. 3) The Halley upgrade should only be offered if the person has at least one advanced tech. 4) Duplicate technology should not be offered, with the possible exception of efficiency upgrades which could be stackable. I enjoy the strategic choices that go with having a limited number of technologies and not knowing for sure what one will get, however I find it very frustrating to win battle after battle and being rewarded only with unusable and duplicate technology, forced to use the same strategy and units for each one because the technology for other units and strategies is continually withheld.
Your choices of whether to replace random techs are really rather limited. It's not really a part of a strategy so much as given the available options, just choose the best. And whether you get more slots is also random, not to mention the factories themselves. I would like to see players choose which techs they would like to produce, and have a diverse array of techs to choose from. Instead of a single, mostly-random choice about when to switch out techs, you can have a large, overarching tech strategy, as well as individual tactical choices about how to outfit each of your commanders in each battle.
