What game is better? GalCiv2 or SE5

it really seems like SE5 is designed to be a multiplayer game-

i've noticed in SE5, the AI doesn't make sure its ships are adequately supplied. sometimes i go into their system and their own ships can't even fight back.

the AI doesn't know when it is hopeless for them and always vows to continue to fight- when destruction is imminent. they end up saying something like "surrender when we're so close to winning?" after you've already wiped out their entire fleet and genocided 2/3 of their population- wiped them off their planets. have all the warp points covered, etc...

if the AI could actually provide a challenge, SE5 would be the better game hands down.

There have been a lot of posts on this so give the search a try as most of what needs to be said has been.

GCII is a very good game but I think SEV is better. I believe this principally because SEV has a much greater scope and gives the player more options a lot more. As an aside I think this is why the AI is weak as it’s a very complex game to work with this as efficiently as a human player with scripts etc is difficult. GCII isn’t doing anything that different from CIVI really. The AI in SEV can be improved and has been just look at the IRM and the balance Mod and see what I mean.

Then we have the multiplayer side which GCII runs a mile from but which is the strength of the SE series with SEV though the game does work better as PBEM or PBP as turn processing on other methods can be a bit long

I say this as some one who owns both games but plays SEV

I used to own both games, but I've thrown out my copy of GalCiv 2. It is my experience that GalCiv 2 was easier to learn and was, initially, more fun to play. That fun wore off in a month as the games generally played the same regardless how I tweaked the settings. The only way to change it up was to make it more difficult and, for me, less fun. SEV, on the other hand, had a steeper learning curve that took me longer to get into. I'm still playing SEV, because I can alter my style of play and still do well. The games only play the same if I want them to. Another hook for me is that SEV plays like the old tabletop game StarFire. Good stuff!

A simple, unbiased comparison:

Space Empires V:
Pros:
* Tactical Combat.
* Multi-player play available.
* Lots of cool space empire game features, like ring worlds, fighters, custom troops, ect.
Cons:
* Bugs (less than release, but still some hangers on)
* Balance Issues
* Current AI is no challenge at all.

Galactic Civilization 2:
Pros:
* AI not only better than SEV, but better than 98% of the games in existence.
* Well polished, balanced, and mostly bugless game.
* Moral decisions interface, other "fuzzy" aspects that bring a sort of realism into play.
Cons:
* Completely non-interactive combat.
* Single player only.
* "Fuzzy" aspects may dilute number crunching fun.
* Steep system requirements observed on some systems.

As you can see, there's really no comparison, it's just a matter of what you're looking for.

Keep the following in mind, the reviews for SEV are all on version 1.00 (the ones I've seen anyway) and as a vanilla game SEV is barely playable.

So you cannot really take the reviews into consideration. However, I greatly enjoyed Gal Civ II, but until I get the expansion I doubt I'll play it while I have SEV. SEV has annoyed me in many ways since I bought it but it offers so much more than Gal Civ can

I have both GalCiv2 & SE 5.

GalCiv2
pros
great diplomacy system
Good AI; good challenge.
Easier than SE5
No warp point systems; free space.
like their trade system.

cons
very repititive- colonize those planets ---> build research---> improve factories ---> attack ennemy. AI almost never attacks you as long as there are planets left to colonize.
Stupid Galactic council-- forces you to do things.
Game forces you to use highest tech- facility & will upgrade existing one automaticaly. How is that bad, everything in the game (even research) costs money; upgrading you factories to another level that only improves it 10% production wise costs the same money as a new construction. This means you have to spend tons of $$; possibly bankrupting empire just for extra production capacity. Go to stardock and read about upgrading facilities. I heard they fixed it in an expansion pack ($30).
no combat simulator; no way to judge if your ship designs work.
weapons do not matter; just get highest #s; no rate of fire/accuracy
No fighters/ carriers
One ship vs one ship combat- you can have 10 ships and only 1 will fight; if you didn't research logitics so they can be a fleet. This game is an invitation to tech rush; a lot more than SE5. One good ship can destroy 10 bad ones.
Awful/ really awful ground combat for planet invasion. No troops; just load more pop than oposition. The problem population movers require tons of research & expensive.
Combine the previous, with no planet bombaring/ forces you to invade every planet. The real problem is when you invade a planet you lose the troop transports, either succesful or not. Those ships are more expensive than good battle ships! So beating an oponent with no military; but tons of planets is a pain in the #%#&. That is why I stoped playing it BTW.
not moddable; can't fix or remove an uneeded feature.

SE5
pros
More deeper than GalCiv
Modable- make the game exacly as you want.
tactical combat.
real ground troops
upgrades will not bankrupt empire
More units, lots specialist units. Carriers/ fighters/ drones/ mines/ satilites.
Easier ship retrofit

cons
warp point choke points
AI doesn't utilize planets properly
AI doesn't plan ship combat well

I'd like to add to the above lists:

Galciv II Pros:
- Best AI in the industry at the moment.
- Extremely well balanced gameplay.
- Has a much more realistic economy (a con for some, as it can be difficult to understand)
- Diplomacy that is realistic and *works* in a strategic way (you will not find this on any other game)
- You can lease anything you own to other empires, And rush buy with "monthly payments"
- Realistic trading system (you can win games with it)
- Upgradeable Star bases with AoE effects (trade production,culture etc..)
- Strategic resources that are crucial to control.
- Many alternative ways to win that work.
- It is not focused only in ships and fleets. (that could also be a con for some)
- Explorable anomalies that give permanent empire bonuses some times.
- More eye candy, including cinematics.

Cons will follow later.

ive said this before but ill add it again.

my opinion of this "awsome" AI is this. it looks so awsome because its as the expence of depth of game play for humans. you dont really have any choices on how to build an empire since the game is built around making things as simple as possable for the AI that means you have one basic template that if you dont follow yourself the AI wins.

my point being, if you could drop that AI into a game like SE V, it would be drooling as much as the stock AI drools now. the GS AI looks good because of limited choices. they did a good job hiding it behind things like the ship designer, an inch deep and a mile wide. you can spend literaly hours getting the look of your ship just right, but the meat of the design just inst there, the silly rocks, scissors, paper, combat is about as exciting as watching paper yellow.

i will say though that GS II is like masturbating, its fun while you do it but your ashamed after words.

Galciv 2 had definately a more refined AI and is a more polished game.

I played that and play this now for a change, i like both games but for different reasons.

It would probably be just as good, and at the point Galciv 2 is it would have been patched to completion right now.

Hell, in Galciv 2 the AI is even adaptable to your strategies and ship designs.... will that EVER happen in SE5?

Galciv 2 is a COMPLETELY different game, its more of a Civilization type game, or like a Master of Orion type game where most things are straight forward. SE5 is a complex game that is, actually, too complex for the developers themselves.

Galciv 2 is, plainly, the better game all around due to the shoddy AI unless all you do is play multiplayer. I only play SE5 for a change as, yes, like all games Galciv 2 gets boring. However this game will get boring because the AI doesn't do Stellar Manipulation (among other things) and, plainly, isn't a challenge.

Galciv 2 doesn't require one formula to win at all times, if you think that you havn't played it. I've conquered with culture and troops.... on this game you can only conquer with troops. You could even get alliances or make people do wars for you.... and yes alliances actually WORK in this game.

But like I said, they are two different games. However if you want a challenge you either play this game Multiplayer or Galciv 2 because as of right now the AI in this is trash.

I personally like more complicated games, which is why I played MOO2 for 7 years. However I can't stand a horrible AI and Galciv 2 offers the best there is there. At all strategy games root the core of the game is AI, if that isn't refined then the game, frankly, isn't that great unless it has good multiplayer.

SE5, at the moment, is really a "beta" and not compairable to a game as complete and Galciv 2. I've said in other topics but i really wish Malfador would expand and become a player like Stardock, i want to see a larger upper tier game company work on a game like SE5......

Remember that GalCiv is developed by a multi-people company where they might have people that have good knowledge about AI design and implemention.
MM is just "one person does it all" (except graphics, but the whole programming is done by one person). While I do really like the work of Aaron Hall, you can clearly see the drawbacks of this. (Which have been pointed out by others a few times already)

Overall the game is good and playable, there are just a few quirks here and there, but those will get eridicated over time.

If you like really deep multiplayer space strategy...
If you like a very customizable game with many mods and additions...
If you like to have a very strong community...

... then SE5 is the right game for you.

~~~~
http://wiki.spaceempires.net - Visit the SpaceEmpires Wiki and help improving it.

its not hard to program an AI to adapt to 3 weapons and 3 defences. give em 40 weapons and 65 defences and then see how it does.

yeah you can win with influance, which consists of building starbases in enemy space (not that there is such a thing as enemy space mind you since there is no way to actualy controll any space but that your ships are in at any given second).

what is it about alliances that dont work in SE V? ive never actualy used one mind you, but then again i didnt in GC either more than 4 or 5 times till i relized it was just as usles in that game as any other game like this ive played. whats the point to an alliance? to get help in a war? why? i dont want help they just get in the way and scarf up planets that id rather have myself. is it to get help in defence? in GC having allies never stoped an enemy from attacking me, the drengi never blinked at declaring war on me, and the Yor would stop fighting on the other side of the universe just to come plink at me with their lil pew pew cannons till i sent a single ship, just ONE ship and crushed em since they had 'adapted' to using PD against my missles allright but by the time they decided to make their move i had level 30 missles to their level 2 PD tech. and the last time i played (wich was a patch or two ago) they never EVER upgraded any existing ships, they allways built whole new ones.

no i know what im talking about. i played GC to death for a couple months till i found myself automaticaly following the system each and every single game. seeing this 'awsome' AI letting me build millitary bases 3 tiles from their home planets and doing nothing, watching them ignore resource tiles while building an influance base 1 tile over out in the back of beyond where an influance base was about as valuable as feet on a fish.

i understand that people like too play different ways, i myself have suggested a few improvments to this type of game, and i cant really find fault with what you say about the AI in SE, but i will argue to death that the AI in GC isnt anything special. it has less choices so it looks smarter is all. as i said above its not hard to 'adapt' your ship designes when you only have 3 choices at all ever.

that said, i liked the game for what it was. neither of these games are OMG drop dead, be all end all great. but in my book SE totaly has the edge. add in the fact that im still a little cheesed at the boys at stardoc for talking about an expantion the very DAY that the game was put out. and i dont mean just saying "yeah were pretty sure there is gunna be an expantion" but it was "yup, the expantion is called dark avitar and this is what we have decided to put in it so far" that to me was pure greed and i cant stomach it. they even 'disabled' parts of the original game (spying for one) just so they could sell you the expantion that would do nothing but enable em. i dont mind buying an expantion , but i dont want a busted , half a game and have to buy an expantion to get the other half. something that ive no doubt they did. its like writing a thousand page book and breaking it up onto two 500 page volumes just to get another $7.50. this cow is tired of being milked, and they were just so obvious about it that i wouldnt buy the expantion now at any price.

add that to the fact that i didnt really like the very limited choices, the over hyped AI, and just the general way the game was set up with all open space and no way to actualy build an empire, just a bunch of planets scattered all over hell and gone. id take SE, idiot AI and all, over GC and its 'awsome' AI any day of the week. especialy since the forums arent just full of fan boys here falling all over themselves to kiss ass, but rather there seems to be more than a few people that can see the problems with this game, flat out admit them, and talk about, and from waht ive seen actualy fix issues.

as to the idea that there needs too be a larger team for this game, well i dont really know about that. perhaps, im not in a position to really comment, what i WILL say is that too many cooks can spoil the stew. on the other hand if you starve to death wating for the one cook to finsh thats no good either.

Does Gal Civ 2 have a demo? I don't think so. Why?? Most real turn based strategy gamer's would dismiss as too simple and be bored with the demo and never buy the game. GalCiv is far too simple than Civ4.

Trade being usefull?? that is a joke right?? In one game with maximun trade routes generated to my empire 200-300 bc(game curerency; only resourse). My empire spends around 2000-3000 bc. How can that tinny amount help??

In civ4 at least there are different unit bonuses; so different unit counters. In Gal Civ2 build ONE good ship and kill ALL AI ships very easily, even if outnumbered by 20:1. Why?? in combat it is only 1 ship vs 1 ship.

Don't even get me started on planet caputring/destroying. I will say in one game, I gave an AI (A) most of my high tech ships that were near his war oponent (B). Very easily the AI (A) destroyed B's military. Over the next 10 turns; Empire A only captured 1 planet; although empire B had no more ships, and any that are built are destroyed.

Even on hard against AI, colonize some planets--> research high end tech. don't worry about enemmy ships; they can't hurt colonies b/c no colonies bombardment. Build couple FAST ships with stonage weapons (cheapest avialable) on them. Launch them when you see AI unarmed troop transports. Watch the AI lose transport after another and never escort them. I once held out like this for 20 turns; and even expanded. By then, my military wiped his ships off the map.

The AI in SE5 definatley needs work. But at least the AI in SE5 can wipe me off the map.

I got GalCiv2 when it came out, but once I got bored of the ship designer, there really wasn't a lot to hold me. SE5 on the other hand, I still play regularily, bugs, imbalances and dim-witted AI and all (though the Balance Mod AI is beginning to approach a challange). If you like tactical combat, then SE5 is the game for you; GalCiv's combat can't hold a candle to SE5's. And while GC2 is indeed getting better reviews than SE5, I feel that given time, SE5 will wind up the better game.
But the best advice I can give you is try both. You can get an up to date SE5 demo at
http://www.spaceempires5.com/en-US/node/2391
and while there's no GalCiv 2 demo out, the Stardock website claims there will be one 'soon'.

Suction feet are not to be trifled with!

http://www.download.com/Galactic-Civilizations-II-Dread-Lords-demo/3000-7493_4-10518894.html

GalCiv 2 Dreadlords demo.

I have both games. May as well be comparing SE5 with Medieval 2 or City Life (2 other games I'm having fun with right now) the gameplay is so different.

I personally like both games for different reasons. And in my mind the ideal would be to merge the two games if at all possible (that would require a bigger company than strardock and MM together). I don't want to inflict injustice to any game.

I also feel like I should explain why I think that the AI in galciv2 is so great and currently the best in the industry and not "overhyped" as Wyatt says. This is very difficult and I can only hope that I will be understood. Before I start I will make it explicit that this is my opinion only and that I am not enforcing it to anybody. In fact I would really enjoy and appreciate it if anyone can provide evidence to counter my points.

1) First of all, all of the little "games" you play inside Galciv 2 are simple. Research, manufacturing (not how you get the MPs but how you build stuff), morale, colony construction and upgrade, ship design, ship combat, ship movement, fleets, combat model, etc.. with the exception of economy management and diplomacy. Note that we are talking only the basic stuff here, not top level decision making. This is very important because this is not AI design it's what "buttons" the AI has at it's disposal to push and when it makes a decision, AI design is something else.

For the complex economy model, Stardock hoped at first to design it as a closed system. I will not explain the term here, look it up in an economics textbook or search wikipedia. The final design is an open economy system which means they didn't manage to do it. However that design is very close to such a system and that means that the they can use theoretical economics directly as plug-in equations. This is important because this covers economic metrics, trends, risk assessment, indexes, and many other colorful words that you don't wanna know. The overall effect is that relatively simple code can be written to perform min-maxing management on this complex beast, Because it is a solved problem. note that "solved" here has a special meaning.

For diplomacy with intel along the way I'll talk later. Because they are not basic "tools" rather than tools that require top level decision making.

2) The next important thing is Research and its effects: in galciv 2, as you progress in the research tree you don't get something new and mind boggling that would alter the way you should manage your empire and you don't get huge and sudden improvements that change the lay of the land. This is good for the player and the AI because it is clear that you change X to increase effect Y, and no matter what tech is researched in the future (that may or may not give a bonus in Y) the same X will increase the same Y predictably. There will never be an alternative or a gap. This makes it easy-trivial for the player and the AI to master the basic aspects of managing empire and it includes the various behaviors that should exist as well. Here's a limited example:

-There are no Planet types in calciv2. Colonies can be created on "rocky" planets only. This means that you can colonize as you move say from the center of the empire outwards. Up until you meet another empire or run out of planets.

-In SE once you discover or get a new colony type tech: "Gas giant colonization", you have to return your colony ships that can find no new planets in the edge of your empire or build new ones, reschedule existing ones etc. in short once that tech is researched your behavior has to change on a basic level in order to perform the basic function of "expansion". And those new colonies don't acquire new space because they are in your space already so it's not "expansion" as far as space is concerned it's "expansion" in the density sense. With this tech the nature of colonization has a dual connotation. But wait you can also buy time with this tech since you can expand with no new space requirements, so you can postpone a war and still grow. This is a simple example and there are worse cases that are much more difficult to describe yet alone design for.
-- end of example --

Cool technological advances that make entirely new things possible have a great cost in terms of AI implementability, however they add lot’s of “wow” effect, when the player gets them and excite the science fiction aspect of the game. This is something that galciv doesn’t have.

This simplicity of galciv2 is blasphemous for players that would like to get into a far greater level of detail, including myself who loves the ship & fleet aspect of the genre. Note also that many things in SEV are equally simple (if not more simple than galciv2 like production and the economy & population model), but certainly not unit design, combat, and movement aka the good stuff.

However the above points are not the main meat and drink in the galciv2 AI, this is the base where it is built upon.

3) The real gem in galciv2 is that stardock did that simple basic design so that they could place the weight of the development effort on the top level stuff. Making the top level stuff work is easy for them, because the basic stuff behave linearly and predictable under all conditions. They even went so far as to say that they don’t have the time to waste to code multiplayer capability and I love them for that because I don’t play these type of games with other ppl due to the massive amount of time and organization required.

The top level AI has parts of code that are not even “procedural” in nature (not implementation). It can play a bit of metagaming as well which is evident if you allow yourself to see it. The empires watch you and suggest treaties and exchanges at appropriate opportune times, they don’t spam you with messages constantly like little children. They know your strengths and weaknesses. They can exploit you if you let them and you can take advantage of them to do your wars or your research or to act as a meat shield. They can also be trusted allies or stand as the completely neutral merchants of solutions. They can approach you in a friendly manner despite the fact that they have already decided to betray you. If you can’t believe that, check the after-action reports in the galciv site. I for once have experience it and I wasn’t mesmerized by the hype or by having a vivid imagination that created things that weren't there. Granted it’s not that perfect and it doesn’t happen in every game (can it ever be perfect? Is it perfect with human opponents?) but it’s there and it does happen. Stardock could spend infinite amount of time on that AI and still improve upon it. In fact that is just what they did with galciv2 over galciv1. This kind of behaviour never happens in any Space Empires game ever.

The most important thing is that the AI empires were designed to be fun and interactive in a socio-economic-military sense and for the average gamer, and not a “Deep Blue” hardcore chess champion that performs perfect fleet maneuvers as a general. The true minimaxer won’t have a hard time defeating it 1 to 1. Even an advanced player can defeat it in its hardest AI setting. And all that communication stuff goes to waste when faced with a cornered empire with no com channels. If a player is playing a xenophobic empire guided by a militaristic xenophile ruler he will definitely miss out on that great aspect of the game since there can be no intrigue and no backstabbing without communication and exchange. He might have a hard time only because 2 or more empires are hitting him, or collaborating in an alliance, or just providing weapons and tech for cash, or because some other setup is going on and he will have to find out. The AI for Space Empires is built around the logic of strategical and Tactical warfare, with planets and population commanding and setting the logistics of the game.

Finally 4X players play with the mindset of killing and looting everything, not trusting anyone and going on and on researching everything till the end of the universe. We were taught to play that way I think from the games that were designed in the past. Galciv2 is different and require different mindset. I had and have great fun while cooperating with trustworthy allied empires and achieving allied victories with only limited research.

I really hope that you read all this and made an effort to understand me. I would also like to think that I have provided a basic insight into this problematic world of AI and game design. I could carry on ranting forever by myself on this topic since I just scraped the surface here. I could also provide more info and examples for the various points I am trying to get across but I will end this huge post here.

I don't know why people talk about GC2 and the 1 VS 1 ship battle. It is not like this anymore since a few years ago! You can now fight with a fleet against another fleet and all your ships will fire. They will destroy one ship at a time, meaning that they will all fire on the same ship and destroy it before firing on the next one, but all your ship help destroy the ennemy ships.

This is actually pretty interesting because you can get a fleet of low tek ships and attack 1 high tek ship and destroy it because he can only kill 1 of your ship each round while you can attack it with all your ships...

Anyway, both games are awesome. Unless you give ridiculous ressource bonus to the ai in SE5, you cannnot get much challenge from SE5. But you can do so many things, that the game is still very hot.

One thing i find lacking in SE is the defense from the ai. Very few mines are used, not many satellites either and no forteress with big guns to kick yur ass. I remember in SE4 i modded the game for much better advantages in defense by reducing the defense bases maintenance to 10% so you could build a lot of them and i also boosted the space on them so they could be riddled with weapons. A star forteress with 40 max-lvl weapons and plenty of shields was a sight to behold!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are only 2 things that are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity and i'm not certain about the Universe...

planetary defenses always needed a boost in SE IMHO. This must be done to offset the fact that the to hit rate on planets is almost 100%.

One of the things I used to mod even from the start was population hp, and starbase hulls.

You have to be careful when moding the AI. If you make it very defensive you might weaken its attack even more.

A good offense always is the best defence in SE. I don´t understand why so many people think that extra defense buildings are needed. Sure, programming the AI to build lots of defenses on every system it colonizes is easy, but in the end, it´s useless. What´s the point of wasting thousands of resources on defense if even a single frigate can blockade a port and isollate a system instantly?

What the AI need is: building modern fleets and attacking with them. That´s enough for now.

Well you need a 2nd line of defense. Don't look at it from your point of view of the player who never gets sufficiently attacked to break one of his warp point blockades.

Besides the planets with no shipyards are sitting idle. They should be building weapon platforms, troops satellites all the time. That stuff are cheap. I don't like it when I attack a planet 20 years into the game to find 1 base 3 satellites and no WPs. It's silly.

gnosis: i did indeed read every word of your post. and i cant find a bit of falt with anything you said. especialy

im kinda impressed by all you wrote. it sure is alot of flash and thunder. but that one quote cuts to the meat of MY argument. how does all the talk about great AI translate into the quality of the game itself. the answer in my opinion is, it doesnt.

i wasnt put off by the fluff in your post, all the talk of 'closed systems' and "theoretical economics directly as plug-in equations. This is important because this covers economic metrics, trends, risk assessment, indexes, and many other colorful words that you don't wanna know. " its all alot of noise. your right i dont want to know them because they mean nothing to the topic at hand.

the truth is (and you said it yourself wether you will admit it or not) is that the game was built from the ground up to be simple for the AI to use (read all of the first section of your post for a conformation of this) and that the reason the AI looks so smart (from the second half of your post) is at the expence of that 'far greater level of detail' that you refer too.

now. let me say that this is a question of preferance i totaly and 100% agree with you when you say that "Galciv2 is different and require different mindset. I had and have great fun while cooperating with trustworthy allied empires and achieving allied victories with only limited research."

when i played i didnt. now this is the ticket, and the real point that i think we can both agree on, if you give me a quality AI that you can do all those things you mentioned with in a game as complex (or even more so) than SEV then id say you were onto something. but as i said and you seem to agree with, the reason that the AI looks so smart in GS is that the game is so simple in the first place.

in the Kingdom of the Blind the one eyed man will rule. GC has one eye but its "kingdom" sucks, not to put to fine a point on it. id rather have anarchy in SEV

seriously though, this is just my opinion. if your really interested in the real scoop try em both and see where it takes you. i cant spit on GC totaly, its actualy a fun game, much like tetris or pac-man its about that deep and complex, its got flashing lights and twinkling stars, and even funny little faces that look back at you and *gasp* blink while you 'talk' to them. just dont look for anything more complex in reguards to actualy building an empire since you wont be. you will have a collection of planets and a script that the AI is glued too and built into the game from the ground up to follow. but dont take my word for it, try it out for yourself.

More GC2 Cons:
There are only 5.1 hull types. Call your hulls what you want but when you build the largest hull it is the same as my largest hull. For instance: I choose Fighter, Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer, and Battleship. You choose Corvette, Destroyer, Battleship, Dreadnought, and Titan. Your Dreadnought is equivalent to my Destroyer. Your Titan is equivalent to my Battleship.

I WILL NOT LOAD A MOD TO CORRECT AN INHERENT GAME DESIGN FLAW! So if you feel you must refute my OPINION then do so intelligently (you can throw in a little passion for spice).

---
-my "Ministers are more sinister than Ministers... But who cares?"

Wyatt - you have a lovely turn of phrase so why are you wasting it arguing against GalCiv 2 when just a little while ago you were complaining about the state of Space Empires 5? In a which is better GC2 vs SE5 debate are you taking the position of neither? You're trolling and the other guy is feeding you. This is a small board with 99% helpful people and I would hate to see it ruined by a self-important minority who just want to "hear themselves speak" so to say. You aren't going to win this debate because by taking part you're denigrating yourself.

where did i complain about SEV? i actualy really really enjoy the game. i say very clearly that this game is better than GC. ive said it in more than one place. im not arguing against anything, im stating an opinion. the AI for GC looks smart because the game is so simple. i also said for the OP to try it out for themselves since all that is being offerd here is opinions.

if you dont agree with me thats fine but this thread asked for opinions and i offerd one, if you think that means you need to call me a troll or the 'other guy' one then that cant be helped but its not like i started a thread with a rant just for the sake of hearing myself speak as you put it. the only help i can offer you personely is if you dont like what we have to say then perhaps you can ........ well just skip over that part from now on. no one requires you to read anything i post, or anyone else for that matter.

From what I've read here GC appears to be more like an advanced MOO1 clone than a SE4 or SE5 peer. I agree that its all a matter of taste but I'm still glad I never bought it.

I can't say as I only have GC1 + expansion. Never played the second iteration of it but I had fun playing the first one for awhile. The AI did seem harder in GC but I love how moddable SE is. Thats a huge plus in my book (thank you to all you modders out there!).

With GC you get one game that you can try to play a few different ways; with SE you can basically get innumerable different games that can all play radically different one from another. Try playing Proportions and stock, its almost like 2 different games to me. Our talented mod creators are all the time improving the AI and I hope one day Aaron might incorporate some of these ideas into the next SE game.

I actually agree with a few other ppl that replied to this thread, namely that you can't really compare the two since they play differently. I'm not strictly dissing on GC, its fun for what it is and certainly has more challenging AI "out of the box" than SE does but once I load up BM or Unnamed's Mod or whatever, that caveat dissipates.

I have both games. At first, my opinion of GC2 was high. The learning curve is not that bad. I really enjoyed the ship design, being able to to create a series of theme based designs was a hoot. However, one can't flaw the arguments of those that don't find this game feature enjoyable. They can just double click for auto placement and have just as functional of a ship as one I spend hours getting just right. Fine by me. My game enjoyments are not based on what makes others happy. Each new game can result in different options for your ships based on the differences created by varying your research paths. But ultimately the end game in the same. You don't have a lot of choices in the research paths, esp at the harder levels. The AI (all of them) always follows mass driver/armor. The AI also trades techs freely between themselves, yet won't trade certain techs (including some very low level techs) even if you offer your entire empire. Also at the hardest levels the AI gets bonuses that make their ships extremely hard to kill. not because of smart choices, but because they can simply pack a lot more on their ships. Even the rock/paper/scissors gets trashed because excessive defenses apply to all the weapons, and a single PD with massive armor will negate the majority of your attacks. Of course there are things you can do to overcome this. Just use a ship hull to build a one shot wonder and some cheap fodder.

The AI will focus on a military advantage (and can do it due to the economy bonuses it gets). However, if you pass any particular AI in strength it simply gives up. And God forbid if you start to get an upper hand on a stronger AI, it will surrender to some other AI. Usually one you were friends with. But because of the boost in strength from the surrender it all of sudden begins disliking you.

Not that these things are that bad in and of themselves, but it's the same every game. I simply got tired of the cheats it uses. It left me with a feeling of fighting a single empire compromised of a number of states that hold no accountability to the central unit. I would rather compete against a number of opponents that are actually different.

Indeed, CG2 can be fun, for a while. But for me it wore thin fairly quickly, even at suicidal levels.

This is one of the reasons I decided to get SE5. The SE series has a reputation of an AI that don't cheat. I'll take a stupid AI over a cheating one any day of the week. Granted, the AI in SE5 needs work, but the game is deep enough you can enjoy the game more ways than one (massive empire with every plant owned to a few core planets and a scorched planet mad-man run.)

I don't mind the AI in SE5, and the AI in CG2 is a joke. It's every bit as stupid as the AI in SE5 except it cheats. Take away the CG2 AI bonuses (and the exploitation of out-side-game-rules) and it can't hold a candle to a 1st yr TBS noob.

The main issue I have with CG2 is the franchise raping. First, you have to buy the game. Then, if you desire a more complete game you have to buy the expansion pack. But where they go overboard is the second expansion pack. You can't get the second pack unless you also own the first expansion, .... which of course requires the game itself. CG2 can be fun, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg to get an almost complete game. Now, if all players that have bought SE5 paid the $100.00 that it would cost you to get CG2, the AI in SE5 would do every thing but clone sheep. Granted, you can now (finally) get a bundle pack that includes all 3, but those that were loyal to the early releases of the game got bent over the rail. (CG2, CG2 gold, DA, ToA, insert roll eyes here).

You want a fair comparison? CG2 for $100.00, or SE5 for $14.95.
All else being relatively equal (number of strong and weak points between the two).

Compelling argument!

Note. I've never even played GC2. I've got my SE5 and i'm happy with that.

Your lord and master (below Foamy) LordHavoc

Well, I owned GalCiv 2 before I found SE5. After playing both, I just wanted to merge the two together to make a super game. For me, I do love that 3D ship creator, but it is true, they needed more hull types. But as I sit and think, There was more I would take from SE5 than GalCiv2. SE5 had the better tech trees, systems divided by open space (or something anyway), better diplomacy options, and ground combat. Now I would merge the ship battle systems together, because I want to control the ships, but I like the cinematic view provided by GalCiv2. I also found that SE5 works a lot better on my computer than GalCiv2, but thats because you need a state of the art computer (which doesn't seem to have been built yet) to play GalCiv2 at its best. Overall, I would stick with SE5 because it has more that I like than GalCiv2. But they both have things I like.

As someone who has played both games quite extensively, I think I can give my share in this conversation:

GALCIV2

Pros:
- An AI that works... no matter what anyone else might say or think, the AI in GalCiv2 is simply much better hands down. It's functional and not only that, each race has a certain personality to them that's lacking in SEV.
- Better diplomacy... I'm sure there are those who would say otherwise but I believe the diplomacy in GC2 is better. For one thing, it's real time so you don't have to end 1 turn to send your message and wait another turn to get your reply. Everything is instantaneous and fast which is much more convenient.
- More "flash" and eyecandy, and a lot more polish (as you'd expect from a full time game developer)
- The ship designer, while functionally useless, is quite something. You can see a lot of effort has been put into it and while I personally don't care that much about it, it's a neat feature.
- More variety in terms of victory conditions such that military power is not the only way to go. However this is an illusion. More on this later in the cons....
- A universe that feels much more "alive" than SEV because of the random events, the "moral" dilemmas, etc.

Cons:
- The combat system is unexciting. I don't mind that there are only 3 weapons and defense types, but the presentation simply sucks as well. The combat viewer isn't what it's all blown up to be and the SEV tactical combat engine actually looks much better.
- The logistics system... while some players might consider this a game feature, it really just bugs the heck out of me. Because of this, you can't amass huge armadas and clump 'em together unlike in SEV. Unlike in SEV when you feel like you really have some real firepower under your command because of how numerous the ships can be and how large the fleets are.
- The "varieties" in the victory conditions. While it seems to give the game an illusion that there's much more to it, it's hardly ever so. In all of the games I played, sooner or later one of the AIs (usually one of the evil, aggressive ones like the Drengin or Korath)) become so powerful and dominant that they make war on the others to the point that they all surrender. Now, if you're pretty powerful yourself and you were friends with them, they'd probably surrender to you until eventually what's left of the galaxy is you and your enemy and/or their allies. So what can you do? The only thing you can: fight fire with fire. Usually, if you don't strengthen your military to begin with someone will almost always declare war on you and beat you to a pulp. This is true in most games. It almost always boils down to war... unless the victory lasted too long that you get a tech victory or something. You'll have to manipulate the situation like h*ll if you want the other AIs to stay in the game so that you can get an alliance or influence victory. and finally...

SEV

Pros:
- Ultimately more complex. There are so much more choices in terms of tech paths, the kind of units you can make etc. There is much more that you can do in the map and so much more to build. Diplomacy is deep and engaging (although inferior to GalCiv2), espionage is less cheesier (unlike Dark Avatar's agents) and rewarding.
- Combat is much more satisfying and exciting! There is so much more variety in terms of weapons and components as well as the type of units you can have on the field of battle. All sorts of ship sizes, drones, fighters, bases, satellites, drones, etc.! Add to that the ground combat as well and I'd take this system over GalCiv2's 3D ship designer and lackluster combat viewer anytime.
- Multiplayer.

Cons:
- The AI in almost every aspect is just terrible. While it has definitely improved after tons of patches, it's far from being fun and challenging even with the highest bonuses. It seems to know squat about what it needs to do.
- Bland... and this is not just talking about the graphics. The universe is lifeless and uneventful. There's no backstory, no significant events, no interesting characters, etc. It all feels like a skeleton of a game because of a lack of "life" in the universe. This isn't so bad and I can look past this.
- The loooooooooong turn times. Honestly, in this day and age, I simply can't understand why it all takes so long . Why not speed up the computer moves 100 times during this phase so that eveything moves along faster? It's a real serious game breaker and no one except the most diehard players can stand this especially later in the game. I'm sure there's a valid explanation and I guess I'll just have to understand, but when you compare this to GalCiv2 (which takes a few seconds to resolve turns), there's really no comparison.

BOTTOMLINE:
So, which one do I like better? All things being equal, I'm leaning towards SEV because of the much more satisfying combat system (as mentioned in an earlier post, the good stuff)... but only with the current patch and Balance Mod 1.13. Unmodded and unpatched, SEV is unplayable . At this point, the game has been patched well enough that most things work in the game already. The last thing that's keeping me from giving it 10/10 is the turn processing times which are really taking too long even in my decent PC (GeForce 7600GT, Core 2 Duo e6400).

So there you go. These are both great games with different approaches to a great genre. I'm only leaning towards SEV because it has better implementation of some things, but no one can deny the level of polish in GalCiv2. If SEV can process turns as quickly as GalCiv2, then it gets my recommendation hands down.

Dang! Someone leaked my new Organic Tech Mod idea!

Hence the need for the cloned sheep.

I like to play both because of the customization and i love scifi!

Since this is an SE5 forum you may find a few people who are biased.

Another thread more than a year old? I thought it was more courteous to start a new thread if a similar idea has gone more than a few weeks to a month without reply. We have more than a few people who hate seeing resurrected zombies wondering around (Kwok for one...).

We also have people who dislike seeing information on the same topic scattered over multiple redundant threads, rather than kept together in one. And people who get annoyed that others can't be bothered to search for previous answers to a question before starting a new thread.

You're going to bother somebody no matter what you do, so you may as well just use the method you prefer yourself.

-----
"Good morning, Pooh Bear," said Eeyore gloomily. "If it /is/ a good morning," he said. "Which I doubt," said he.