Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.

We have so many ideas that we've documented based on player feedback that we could keep doing expansion packs indefinitely.

Some people might say, "Why not do a sequel?" but as a practical matter, whole new games are much more expensive to do than expansion packs are. 

In the case of Galactic Civilizations, the soonest a GalCiv III would come out would be like 2010 and that would be a best-case scenario.  That's because the bulk of our development resources are working on the unannounced fantasy strategy game.

But expansion packs can be done with smaller staffs since you have the basic game there to do.  But that raises the question, how many expansion packs do people want and how radical should they be?

For example, I would be open to revamping the whole economic system in a future expansion pack to help streamline it.  I'd also like to expand the United Planets to allow civilizations to submit "bills" to the UP to vote on.  I'd also like to see more types of ship components, more diplomatic options, and so on.

Other players have requested things like multiplayer, tactical battles, fast carriers, invasion improvements, and so forth. 

But the question is, would players be interested in another 2 or 3 or more expansion packs in the future?  (or put another way, would there be enough players interested to pay for the cost of development)?  Or would it make more sense to have Twilight of the Arnor be the final expansion pack and move fully on to other projects and do a sequel in 3 or 4 years?

What do you think?


Comments (Page 2)
9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Sep 07, 2007
for my two cents' worth, if you revamp combat it think the bottom line should be that you won't lose anything if you don't micromanage. what that should mean is no ordering units in real time: you can plan tactics before battle or pre-program them into each fleet or type of fleet or type of ship or individual ship, but once two sides enter battle the outcome should be established purely but automated equations.

that way players who don't want to micromanage dozens of battles don't have to, but we still end up with a feeling that we have a lot of choices at our disposal. same goal should apply to invasions.
on Sep 07, 2007
Sequal? When you got sucha solid platform to work on as GalCiv2, is there really any point in even considering a sequal? Its like if Caesar would have said "Hey, lets rebuild Rome from scratch!"

For most games expansions are rather shallow, but the GalCiv2 expansion add a lot of flavour and content that improve a already great game. As long as the expansions dont break the gameplay, I dont see any reason why I wouldnt want more.

Twilight of the Arnor has some of the features ive been wanting from GalCiv2 since I first played it, unique tech/weapons for the different civilizations! Things just keep on getting better and better.

on Sep 07, 2007
Well with all the ideas that have been put forth, I'd hate to have to wait 3 more years for an updated game. I too, like the sound of the UP idea, i once suggested that civs be able to see the subject before the vote comes out and they can use the trade screen to try to get allys (only allys) to vote their way. And an elected president choses which subject gets voted on.

But, To answer your question I thimk the continues release of expansions is ok. I like to tyhink the svaings are passed onto us and i like that i feel like im still playing the same game i love. A new game is, well, a new game. i guess its all psycological though. As long as the expansions keep the game growing and getting better id be willing to buy them. I think a GalCiv3 is something for when the entire game will be changed.
Like maybe a real 3-d galaxy, spherical and all or voices in the game "our shilds are down, we're taking damage!!" stuff like that.

on Sep 07, 2007
I will continue to buy the expansions for this amazing game. True I want multiplayer above all the other features but so far I am in love with all the other features you plan to put in also.

I want to see more expansions before you start work on a Gal Civ 3.. or to be honest. Forget Gal Civ 3 and just focus on Gal Civ 2. It already is an amazing game and with more expansions it will continue to be amazing.
on Sep 07, 2007
Well personally I think the addition of the Terror Stars is a big leap.....now we only need carriers!  

I just wish there was a lot more depth to the game, and by depth I mean the fun kind of depth. Not the kind of depth that makes the game confusing. Like having unique techs per race. I like the Drengin Slave Pitts a lot.

The Good/Netral/Evilthing needs to be fixed, as said by many here on the forum. Being good shouldn't always be a kick in the pants. Like the underwater cities, if the you let them live they will contribute to the game in some other way. They could give you a boost in extreme planet colonization research for example. If you just killed them all you get nowhere, so evil should get the boot there.

The ancient city ruins: If good didn't bulldoze it down, it could give a boost to the influence of the planet but it would slow pop growth. If you did bulldoze it you would get a boost in pop growth, but loss of influence.

There just seems to be no thought here with the planetary events. Evil always gets the bonuses. Does benevolence have no reward?!  

Speaking of the underwater cities, I think they should be able to live along side your race as a minor nation. Probably not the best idea, but I think when you land on a planet you should have a chance of finding a race that has todays level of technology. It would just be so much cooler to claim the planet and use them as your little guinea pigs. If the planet had different nations on it, the nations would battle eachother for dominance.
Once one side gains control they would be upgraded to a "minor race".

Minor races: They shouldn't be minor. Do you know how hard it would be to unite an entire world? Try uniting Earth. You have SO many cultures that fight eachother and you would have to get them all to be peacful and not want kill to eachother. Not gonna happen in our lifetimes. So uniting an entire planet under one solitary rule is a magnificent feat for ANY civilization.

Politics just needs to be done all over again. Diplomacy is SO boring. The UP bills thing is good though.

Speaking of which, it would be cool to guide your race from primitive society into the space age of Galciv2. Yea, I'm asking a lot that will probably never happen. Combine Sid Meirs's Civilizations, little of the Age of Empires series, Master of Orion, and Galactic Civilizations to get the ULTIMATE GAME! Yea, i'm asking to much aren't I?  


on Sep 07, 2007
I'm always up for an expansion for a great game...

Other players have requested things like multiplayer, tactical battles, fast carriers, invasion improvements, and so forth.


...but there's probably a point where you're starting to invest a lot of dev effort in stuff that only a minority (have said they) want, and at that point you might see decreased sales from "core" GC fans like me that have little or no interest in these kinds of features.

There are already hardcore GC2 players that don't have DA for whatever reason and are happy enough with the incomplete DL game.

It's likely that everybody has some pet feature they'd like added that probably wouldn't appeal to the masses. Once you run out of things worth adding as expansion items, rather than freebies, I think you've hit the expansion wall.
on Sep 07, 2007
The Good/Netral/Evilthing needs to be fixed, as said by many here on the forum. Being good shouldn't always be a kick in the pants. Like the underwater cities, if the you let them live they will contribute to the game in some other way. They could give you a boost in extreme planet colonization research for example. If you just killed them all you get nowhere, so evil should get the boot there.


I think you kinda missed the point of morale choices. Evil choices always reap the benefits, but on the downside youll be more prone towards a evil alignment which will hurt your diplomatic relationships (especially with Good aligned factions).

Its easy being evil, thats how its always worked be it in a game or reality. But soon or later someone is gonna come knocking down your door and make you stop your villainous behavior. Thats something that is a lot less likely if youve gone on the morally good path in your choices. Thats also the real benefit of making a Good choice.

You cant have your cake and eat it... unless your evil and steal someone elses cake that is.
on Sep 07, 2007

... But that raises the question, how many expansion packs do people want and how radical should they be?




I don't really want to wait until after 2010 for a sequel, so as many expansions that enrich the game play; as long as they're not just cosmetic updates.


For example, I would be open to revamping the whole economic system in a future expansion pack to help streamline it. I'd also like to expand the United Planets to allow civilizations to submit "bills" to the UP to vote on. I'd also like to see more types of ship components, more diplomatic options, and so on.


Other players have requested things like multi-player, tactical battles, fast carriers, invasion improvements, and so forth.




Ooooo tactical battles! All of these ideas are great - except multiplayer would not get my dollars.

Also any chance of some sort of auto-engineer for the ship building side of the game? Although the designer's fun after a while I just tack parts on anywhere so I can get back to the game.


... Or would it make more sense to have Twilight of the Arnor be the final expansion pack and move fully on to other projects and do a sequel in 3 or 4 years?


What do you think?




Whilst I'm looking forward to you other project work I'd hate to see Twilight as the last expansion pack.

on Sep 07, 2007
More expansions would be great!
I can't wait for 1.7. When TA comes out, it's "Katy bar the door"!
on Sep 07, 2007
I would also purchase every expansion pack that you put out. I love the game and love Stardock as a company. Keep them coming!
on Sep 07, 2007
For me? Hell yes, I would buy expansion packs, if they kept being as incredibly awesome as Twilight is sounding!

I say, the more radical the enhancements, the better! If the strategic depth of the game isn't improved significantly, it's really not worth my money. A UP that isn't a complete waste of space and precious oxygen? I'd pay for that! A revamped economic system? Sign me up! More ship components? Better invasions? Hell yeah! And since I have no doubt the AI will become ever more competent and interesting, let's have three cheers for that as well!

I'd also pay good money for sensor countermeasures such as cloaking devices, or changes to the battle system to allow inconclusive battles and make wars a more open to interesting strategies. I'll second the call for a revamp of the ethics system, as well.

I wouldn't pay money for multiplayer or tactical combat, though. The former doesn't hold much interest (and as you've argued in the past, wouldn't work too well) and tactical combat would be going a bit too far. I'd love for more strategy before battles, after battles, and during ship design, and I'd never pass up putting more polish on the battle viewer (while it was vastly improved with Dark Avatar, it's still not as interesting to watch as it could be), but micromanaging my forces should be reduced to the fleet level. There's more than enough room to make wars interesting without making the player go into the details.
on Sep 07, 2007
The Good/Netral/Evilthing needs to be fixed, as said by many here on the forum. Being good shouldn't always be a kick in the pants. Like the underwater cities, if the you let them live they will contribute to the game in some other way. They could give you a boost in extreme planet colonization research for example. If you just killed them all you get nowhere, so evil should get the boot there.


I think you kinda missed the point of morale choices. Evil choices always reap the benefits, but on the downside youll be more prone towards a evil alignment which will hurt your diplomatic relationships (especially with Good aligned factions).

Its easy being evil, thats how its always worked be it in a game or reality. But soon or later someone is gonna come knocking down your door and make you stop your villainous behavior. Thats something that is a lot less likely if youve gone on the morally good path in your choices. Thats also the real benefit of making a Good choice.

You cant have your cake and eat it... unless your evil and steal someone elses cake that is.


Yes thats true, but don't you think good races need some sort of benefits too? Even if they take a loss at the start it should pay off in the long run atleast. And even if you are a good zealot, you have crappy bonuses any way.
on Sep 07, 2007
I don't post, or log in often but this deserved a post.

Yes I would be willing to pay for more expansion packs. How many? At least 4.

I would love parts that move, glow etc, or pretty much anything else. The only feature I don't want is multiplayer.
on Sep 07, 2007
Ship jewelery alone would make me buy an expansion pack. A revamp of the economy sounds great, but i will add my voice to no multiplayer. I would only buy that expansion if it was coupled with other great items that i wanted.

Keep the expansions coming but for my mind, leave out multiplayer, you don't need it, the AI is more than a challenge.

on Sep 07, 2007
I would definitely like a good evil revamp. All three should have positives for a variety of play types, as it is good only seems to favor those that like dealing co-operating, wheeling dealing with the AI.

I would love the good benefits to be long term benefits with the evil choices having more immediate effects, which is almost what it is now. As a side this more closely matches the Game Theory explanations for good behaviour.
9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last