Brad Wardell interview

Brad Wardell · Post by **Brad Wardell** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:59 pm

No problem.

Also the game journals are all at this link:

http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx

Essentailly we have a blog system and based on what the topic is, it's syndicated. The JoeUser.com stuff is our general blog site where people (anyone) can talk about anything - life, friends, children, politics, religion, games, you name it. So what Kobra is referring to is that my blog on JoeUser.com contains topics unrelated to gaming or desktop enhancements.

We tend to be pretty transparent on what we do.

For instance, our stress test this week: http://www.galciv2.com/Forums.aspx?Foru ... AID=100792

Love these forums, btw.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:48 pm

wtf kind of company is this being all accessible, open, and forthright. btw gal civ 3 needs to have tactical battles like homeworld. or at least the option to turn that on. auto resolve or homeworld KICK A battles.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:01 pm

Ender wrote:wtf kind of company is this being all accessible, open, and forthright.

Yeah, it's gotta be a scam of some sort.

- Ash

Brad Wardell · Post by **Brad Wardell** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:19 pm

The various indightments and class action lawsuits don't use the term "scam", more like flim flammery.

As for battles, it does have tactical battles sort of, they're just auto-resolved:

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:42 pm

Those green ships remind me of the dropships from Aliens

Samurai · Post by **Samurai** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:54 pm

Wait, so we get to design our own ships, then see them fight it out with TEH ENEMY!?!

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

Brad Wardell · Post by **Brad Wardell** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:56 am

Yep. You literally design your ships, both visually and in terms of what they do and then can watch them battle it out.

So in this example, I've designed this heavy fighter. The red dots are hard points that I can attach things to. I can attach anything I want to thhose points including "extras" which use no space but instead just let me cosmetically alter it.

When you first start designing, you just get a hull. I added the wings and other doo-dads to it and then added the missiles (see the two Mark II stinger missile launchers on the sides near the cockpit?).

Then you can watch them battle it out to see how well your design does:

You also see them on the map itself:

Since there are 3 types of weapons and 3 types of defenses, the battles are more than cosmetic (though you can fast forward them or just turn them off entirely). They let you see how effective your design is against a particular ship.

A lot of times in strategy games, the player doesn't understand how unit X beat unit Y. Here you can (optionally) see the play by play of every shot.

So if this was the classic Tirene vs. battleship, you'd see that lucky harpoon that happen to grab ahold of the rutter of the battle ship that caused it to turn into a nearby shallow and sink it..

Kobra · Post by **Kobra** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:35 am

Why do I sense an "OO Effect" coming on around here?

Edit: Now that Brad has reached 20 posts, maybe he will respond to my PMs.

Brad Wardell · Post by **Brad Wardell** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:34 am

I can PM now? OO!

Brad Wardell · Post by **Brad Wardell** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:34 am

I can PM now? OO!

Freezer-TPF- · Post by **Freezer-TPF-** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:00 am

I dig the art style. The ships look like toys.

weeskwee · Post by **weeskwee** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:11 am

that first one looks like a ship out of an early 80's anime show. i think it transforms into the chest piece for voltron.

Brad Wardell · Post by **Brad Wardell** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:23 am

Users actually control the lighting and coloring and all. So you can make it look like a toy or make it look more "realistic"

example:

Lee · Post by **Lee** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:35 am

Ohh, I like the dark picture much better, gives the ships more of a bad ass look.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:52 am

I'm not generally one for space combat games, but I feel an OOFE coming on here...

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:00 am

Zaxxon -

While combat is part of the game, DON'T expect another Wing COmmander.

tals · Post by **tals** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:18 am

Zaxxon wrote:I'm not generally one for space combat games, but I feel an OOFE coming on here...

Yeah sad but true - much as I try to resist it for its lack of MP I just can't

That AI just better make me feel like i'm playing with friends

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:36 am

Brad Wardell wrote:Yep. You literally design your ships, both visually and in terms of what they do and then can watch them battle it out.

Brad - thank you for the explanation of exactly how ship design works. I was aware of the feature, and even of what you'd described as the "lego-like" aspect of it, but getting a better idea of precisely how it works is appreciated.

This has been one of my most anticipated elements of the new game. At this point, I'm mostly concerned that I'm going to spend more time building ships than I will playing the game. I spent hours doing exactly that when I was a kid. The chance to do it again, with the pretty 3D graphics for the resulting shootouts, instead of my imagination, is something I'm really looking forward to.

One question, although I think there's only one logical answer: I assume the cosmetic aspects of the design won't influence it's combat effectiveness? For instance, on your Shining Knight, would it be just as effective with those two missile launchers if they were mounted on the wings, or aft-facing? In other words, is it possible to make a certain technology "less effective" by putting it on a badly-designed ship?

- Ash

Kobra · Post by **Kobra** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:49 am

Zaxxon wrote:I'm not generally one for space combat games, but I feel an OOFE coming on here...

Ultimately, I'm to blame for all of this. If Tom Chick had not told Brad I was flaming him here, none of this would be going on.

You'd almost think I was handling the fanboy PR for them in an indirect way.. LMAO.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:04 am

Kobra wrote:
Zaxxon wrote:I'm not generally one for space combat games, but I feel an OOFE coming on here...
Ultimately, I'm to blame for all of this. If Tom Chick had not told Brad I was flaming him here, none of this would be going on. You'd almost think I was handling the fanboy PR for them in an indirect way.. LMAO.

First: Tom Chick reads our forums? I did not know that. Cool.

Second: I'll be happy to take over the OO GalCiv-fanboi work for you, if you'd like. I seem to recall being called that here a few times around the release of GalCiv 1, anyway...

- Ash

JonathanStrange · Post by **JonathanStrange** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:23 am

I'm thinking that I would enjoy the combat since although it's AI resolved and I'm not controlling the actual ship, the effectiveness of each ship is based on my design and I'm able to see its performance in battle.

Lockdown · Post by **Lockdown** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:20 am

Asharak wrote:Yep. One question, although I think there's only one logical answer: I assume the cosmetic aspects of the design won't influence it's combat effectiveness? For instance, on your Shining Knight, would it be just as effective with those two missile launchers if they were mounted on the wings, or aft-facing? In other words, is it possible to make a certain technology "less effective" by putting it on a badly-designed ship?

It is not possible to make technology "less effective" by where things are placed, no. It is cosmetic only, although it should be noted that weapons will fire from the hardpoint locations you place them on, if that adds to the atmosphere at all. If you put a phasor on a forward top mounted hardpoint, like the nose of your ship, you will see it fire from there. If you put a second one underneath a wing, you will see it fire from there. Brad can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think my answers are accurate.

Rest assured though, there are alot of decisions to make when designing your ships that have nothing to do with cosmetics. You have limited space, and during the mid to late game, alot of different things you can place on these suckers. Note also that "space available" has nothing to do with hardpoints visually. The addition of hardpoints (visually) are strictly to give you many, many, many more options on where to place things like sensors, life support, weapons, etc...

Tom Ohle · Post by **Tom Ohle** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:44 pm

Kobra wrote:
Zaxxon wrote:I'm not generally one for space combat games, but I feel an OOFE coming on here...
Ultimately, I'm to blame for all of this. If Tom Chick had not told Brad I was flaming him here, none of this would be going on. You'd almost think I was handling the fanboy PR for them in an indirect way.. LMAO.

Actually I think I was the one who alerted Brad to the existence of OO... but I can't be held responsible for his actions.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:51 pm

You could place a weapon on the back of your ship facing backwards if you wanted to simulate the Spathi...or French.

Id like to build a ship that looks like Prometheus from Stargate SG-1

Kobra · Post by **Kobra** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:56 pm

Tom Ohle wrote:Actually I think I was the one who alerted Brad to the existence of OO... but I can't be held responsible for his actions.

Well I knew there had to be a "Tom" involved somewhere.. Always those Tom guys you know!

As for ship combat, I'm a bit worried about too much Rock-Paper-Scissors resolution. Is it by the numbers, or is it highly possible a gimped ship can disable or heavily damage a stronger ship? Are the battles a simple matter or win or loss based on strict algoritms?

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:57 pm

Brad Wardell wrote:OO!

Indeed.

Zaxxon, what do you mean by "space combat".

Jow · Post by **Jow** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:43 pm

Daehawk wrote:You could place a weapon on the back of your ship facing backwards if you wanted to simulate the Spathi...or French.

How do you say "Pwwwik!" in French?

Kobra · Post by **Kobra** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:07 pm

Nothing I hate worse than cheating fucking AI.. I really like BFME2 demo, but damn, on hard, the AI for Dwarves is mad cheating. Produces FAR FAR more units than could be produced so early in the game.

Seems to me, part of the factor in the AI is a heavy economic advantage. Cheap, real cheap.

Hopefully GalCiv2 will not cheat eh?

Brad Wardell · Post by **Brad Wardell** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:14 pm

This has been one of my most anticipated elements of the new game. At this point, I'm mostly concerned that I'm going to spend more time building ships than I will playing the game. I spent hours doing exactly that when I was a kid. The chance to do it again, with the pretty 3D graphics for the resulting shootouts, instead of my imagination, is something I'm really looking forward to.

One question, although I think there's only one logical answer: I assume the cosmetic aspects of the design won't influence it's combat effectiveness? For instance, on your Shining Knight, would it be just as effective with those two missile launchers if they were mounted on the wings, or aft-facing? In other words, is it possible to make a certain technology "less effective" by putting it on a badly-designed ship?

Yea the design itself visually makes no difference. It's just eye candy.

So someone not into the ship design can literally in seconds zip through and just double click on the weapons, engines, defenses, life support, etc. and the game will automatically try to place them in reasonable places.

But I can honestly say, even having played the game over and over and over, that I almost always sit down and spend a lot of time designing ships.

For example:

You can't really tell from the screenshot but I probably spent 30 minutes making this ship. It's a HUGE ship. And using the middle mouse button you can rotate it around.

But in battle, the only things that matter are those stats.

However, the weapons do fire from where you placed them:

As for Kobra's question on AI cheating:

At most levels the AI is penalized. But at "intelligent" they are playing their best game with the same resources. You can set them players to above intelligent and at that point they get free money so that people who are really good at these games continue to be challenged.

That said, the AI will be regularly updated at least for the first year, probably more (We updated the original for 2 years). Even since we went to manufacturing, I've updated the AI. When I play the game, I'm playing in the debugger so when I think of a new trick or strategy or see some weakness, I can put it in.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:33 pm

Thanks Brad (and Lockdown). That was what I wanted to know.

- Ash

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:58 pm

I hope easy is easy. Even on the lowest setting in GalCiv1 I never won ..ever.

Samurai · Post by **Samurai** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:40 pm

Hey Brad, I changed my mind and wound up ordering this directly from stardock. I got an email confirming my order, but no serial numbers or links to preload it. Any idea how long it usually takes for that to get out?

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:57 pm

Samurai wrote:Hey Brad, I changed my mind and wound up ordering this directly from stardock. I got an email confirming my order, but no serial numbers or links to preload it. Any idea how long it usually takes for that to get out?

From what's been posted on the GalCiv website (I believe I linked the news snippet earlier in this thread), the preloading option for people that weren't in the beta doesn't begin until tomorrow. From what I read on the GalCiv forums today, it sounds more likely to be later in the day tomorrow than earlier in the day.

So I don't think you're missing anything yet.

And my apologies to Brad if I'm stepping on his toes or misinforming anyone with this.

- Ash

Pharaoh · Post by **Pharaoh** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:59 pm

Awesome post Brad...thanks to your posts about the ship design feature and great attitude toward questions around here, I successfully sold 6 people on getting GalCiv2 today who had no clue it even existed.

God I cannot wait for this game. Must....have!!!

Phanboi · Post by **Phanboi** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:12 pm

A stardock dude on the stardock chat told me that the download will be at or after 2:30 pm est tomorrow.

Elmo · Post by **Elmo** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:48 pm

But unless I missed something there is no big rush. You don't get all the files needed to play the final version unitl the release date which is the 21st.

Samurai · Post by **Samurai** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:51 pm

Elmo wrote:But unless I missed something there is no big rush. You don't get all the files needed to play the final version unitl the release date which is the 21st.

Yeah true, but I'm still not clear on whether my preorder of the CD retail version of the game on stardocks site still entitles me to preload the game and download it on release. From Brad's posts on QT3, I seem to think so, I just want to make sure.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:30 pm

This still probably won't provide the certainty you're looking for, Samurai, but this is from the FAQ on the GalCiv forums:

Q: I want to purchase the game at Stardock and download immediately but I still want the box. Can I do this?

A: YES. If you purchase the second option (CD purchase) you still get a serial # to download the game. That serial # is temporary (i.e. will expire) but will let you play the game until the box arrives.

That, coupled with the fact that their previous posts have said that "ALL" preorders will have DL access tomorrow, means I can't imagine a scenario in which you wouldn't be able to begin your DL tomorrow.

EDIT> Brad just put up another post, here, which says this again, in language that seems to even more plainly indicate that those who preordered the CD version will still be able to download this week.

- Ash

Scanner · Post by **Scanner** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:02 pm

Could someone (maybe Brad!) elaborate on ship design a little?

Is it like SMAC, in that each new technology basically makes the previous one obsolete? Or is it like Battletech/Titans of Steel (or even Guild Wars), in that new technologies increase your tactical diversity and/or allow you to narrow your focus, but there's no immediate reason to drop your PPC (or Life Siphon) build just because a new option is available?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:09 pm

If it works like MOO2 did then i think (if i remember it correctly) there is a middle ground in what you're saying. I research the new mass driver and that opens up a new lvl of attack. But my previous mass driver technologies now take advantage of miniturization. Meaning. I can put 1 Mass Driver X gun on my ship OR I can put 5 Mass Driver V guns on my ship. Or in the case of GalCiv this makes making an all purpose ship a bit easier as you can put the heaviest Beam gun on your ship and maybe throw on very early missle launchers just in case you need em.

I think that explains it.