-
Space strategy roll-call!
By now, I think it's safe to say that my affinity for BOTF (Star Trek The Next Generation: Birth of the Federation) and GalCiv 2 (Galactic Civilizations 2) is fairly well-known around here. Indeed, I'm a big fan of space strategy games in general. If there's a space strategy title that's come out in the last 10 years, odds are at least 50/50 that I've tried it out at some point. In addition to BOTF and GalCiv 2, the list of those I've owned/played include the following:
Imperium Galactica 2
Homeworld
Spaceward Ho! IV
Master of Orion 2
Master of Orion 3 (regrettably)
Galactic Civilizations 1
Stars!
Reach for the Stars
Sins of a Solar Empire
Space Empires IV
Space Empires V
Star Wars: Rebellion
Star Wars: Empire At War
Lost Empire: Immortals
So who else here likes strategy games set in space -- and if so, which ones do you play (either currently or in the past)?
Another question: What would your "dream" space game (assuming it doesn't already exist) consist of? What features would you need and/or really like to see?
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Star Wars: Rebellion (as much as most hate it, I absolutely LOVE it)
Star Wars: Empires at War (ground battles suck, but large space battles are pretty epic and what I always imagine an updated Rebellion would be like)
Freelancer (loved it, though was disappointed that it didn't do much to expand on the Starlancer plot)
Imperium Galactica 2 (loved the game, but it eventually got to a point where it got boring once you built 50 battleships and overran everything)
Sins of the Solar Empire (I feel like I'm the only person to absolutely hate this game with a passion)
Maelstrom (NOT the 1993 Asteroids clone, nor the 2007 version)
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Hmmm
Sins
Starwars
Space Empires IV and V
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Sins of a Solar Empire
Star Wars: Empire
Freelancer
I love space-strategy games, but I dislike many of the current titles. For me, my "Dream Game" would definitely be something like Galactic Peloponnesian War. Definitely something along the lines of David Weber's Death Ground series.
I likes Sins, just because I could have pretty decent sized space battles. Diplomacy was lacking in many of them. I would like a combination of Freelancer universe and Sins grand strategy.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kekvit Irae
Star Wars: Rebellion (as much as most hate it, I absolutely LOVE it)
I didn't really hate it per se, I just couldn't deal with the painfully unintuitive interface. In terms of concept, scope, and design (the UI notwithstanding), I have to admit Rebellion was pretty brilliant, especially for its time. :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kekvit Irae
Star Wars: Empires at War (ground battles suck, but large space battles are pretty epic and what I always imagine an updated Rebellion would be like)
I mostly agree, although I wouldn't go quite so far as saying the planetary invasions suck. I would say they're mediocre -- not bad, but not great. I liked that you have to win or lose with whatever forces you have on the planet's surface, and that you didn't have to deal with base-building or any of the rest of that nonsense. That aside, however, I'll agree that ground combat is pretty undistinguished.
And yes, the space battles are definitely awesome. :2thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kekvit Irae
Imperium Galactica 2 (loved the game, but it eventually got to a point where it got boring once you built 50 battleships and overran everything)
Yeah, my experience was similar. Of course, I doubt there's an empire-building strategy game in existence where you *don't* eventually hit what the "tipping point of inevitability", but it would've been nice if IG2 had been designed so that we'd been able to build up a truly epic-sized fleet before reaching that point. :shrug: Ah well.
One thing I loved was the cheesy/bad voice-overs during space battles. Every time a ship that was in no immediate danger screamed out "We're going do die!!", or a vessel that had just destroyed an opponent crowed "Who's the daddy?", I totally cracked up. :laugh4:
Also: Primitive though it was, I rather liked the ground combat model. It was similar to Empire at War where you fight on the planet's surface with whatever assets you have available to you at the time. It also made space combat more interesting, as you could specifically target and destroy troop carriers, which meant that even an out-matched defensive fleet could still force a Pyrrhic victory on the invaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kekvit Irae
Sins of the Solar Empire (I feel like I'm the only person to absolutely hate this game with a passion)
I don't hate it, but my reaction was decidedly "meh". I like the concept, but it's just a little too shallow for me in terms of diplomacy and actual empire-building. Also -- EaW & IG2 aside -- I don't particularly care for real-time strategy games, even when they're not twitch-fests.
I would actually love to see a space game like MOO3 or Sword of the Stars with turn-based empire management and real-time combat. Except, you know....better. ~;p
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
I enjoy them very much, but after buying MOO III (regrettably), I've been paranoid about investing in other games in this genre.
I don't see Sword of the Stars and its expansion mentioned. A friend sent me a link about it, and it looks decent. Have any of you played these? What did you think? EDIT: Just re-read the thread and saw it. More?
Generally speaking, I'd like to see something along the lines of MOO II with modern-day graphics. I'd like to be able to design my own 3D ships like you can in some of the newer games, and expand that to landing craft, and even my race's architecture/buildings on planets.
I'd like 3D tactical battles, both in space and in planetary invasions, which offered the player control of ships and fleets instead of just a spectator role. I would want the level of extreme detail in managing resources, production, economy, diplomacy, intelligence, etc., preserved or even expanded.
Much of this has been done already, but I'd like to see even more:
- variety in races with differing but balanced strengthes and weaknesses.
- differences in racial GUI interfaces, music, ship designs, objectives, and tactics
- a highly dynamic universe with numerous setup parameters that allow me to design and play a wider variety of scenarios
- a dynamic tech three that was a bit different each game, one where certain innovations were available through research only by certain races, or even one race. Other races would have to acquire these special technologies through espionage, trade, or capture and reverse engineering.
- intricate espionage and diplomacy models/engines. Much more involved that in the games I've played in the past. I want to be able to play scenarios with heavy-duty politics (or not, if I choose in my initial game set up).
Though software engine requirements would probably make it impractical, I think it would be awesome to have cut-scene like episodes where the game switched you to first person, say for espionage situations, delicate infiltration or extraction missions, etc. Essentially what I'm suggesting is a three-in-one game: high level strategy (I prefer turn-based, so I have plenty of time to manage all of the details), that led into 3D tactical battle in space and on planets, and a story that brought you into first-person for missions--maybe not just my character all the time but sometimes with a team, etc. (like Red Alert did on a very simplified level).
Heh, dream on. I'll stop here. With more thought I could go on and on.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
MoO II, by far the best space strat I've ever played. I played GalCiv I, and got bored fairly quickly with the near complete lack of control over battles and the little variety between civs and the inability to customize my own one. Hence, I never bothered with the second.
Aside from MoO II, I've yet to be really entralled with any other space strat.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Space strategy and space games in general have been my favourite genre since Warhead, Starglider (2), Supremacy and Millennium on the Amiga. I played pretty much every space game before MoO2, since then I've been a bit more selective. Sadly, MoO2 is still the best of space strategies. (And Freespace 2 is the premier space combat sim. ~;p)
GalCivs lack the crucial space combat aspect, and SE IV / V races are just bland and boring. Sins is a rather shallow game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Lost Empire: Immortals
So, are you actually playing the current version and is that any good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
Freelancer (loved it, though was disappointed that it didn't do much to expand on the Starlancer plot)
Thats' a strategy game? ~;) Not quite on topic, but adding elitelikes and space sims to the discussion would be fine by me.
Quote:
Sins of the Solar Empire (I feel like I'm the only person to absolutely hate this game with a passion)
Hate with a passion? "Dislike" I could understand, it is a rather shallow game after all, but it is definitely a decent game by any objective standard. What, then, is your beef with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
What would your "dream" space game (assuming it doesn't already exist) consist of? What features would you need and/or really like to see?
I'd like to see a space game with somewhat simplified empire building but complex diplomacy, espionage and battle aspects. Good multiplayer over PBEM would be great - that means a compressed turn structure, a lot of things happening during any given turn. Something like Dominions 3 in space, though I wouldn't mind a bit more complex "province" management.
I've always liked the combat model of Nexus. An expanded version of that would make a nice tactical battle engine. Sprinkle in some fleet management features from Space Empires and an orders system to make it work in PBEM play, and the battle system would be pretty much nailed.
Espionage shouldn't be too abstracted, and it should be related to "real-world" espionage like ship designs, fleet orders and so on. I've always felt that direct stealing of technologies or massive-scale sabotage are a bit silly. Some of the recent espionage models are okay, such as in GalCiv and SE IV/V, but adapting that to a multiplayer simultaneous execution system would be something of a challenge.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
makaikhaan
MoO II, by far the best space strat I've ever played. I played GalCiv I, and got bored fairly quickly with the near complete lack of control over battles and the little variety between civs and the inability to customize my own one. Hence, I never bothered with the second.
Aside from MoO II, I've yet to be really entralled with any other space strat.
Yea MoO II, the choice of the Friesian cow, is my fav too. Fantastic game. The only part about it where it fails is in alliances. You really ought to have been able to park your ships in allied territory and vice versa so allies can actually aid one another. In fact alliances are a major pain in the butt as your allies are always wanting you to declare war on someone else and it messes up your plans. Best just to stay non-hostile with everyone in most cases. That's where Gal Civ 2 trumps over MO2, the diplomacy. You can really mess around with other races just by diplomacy means.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kekvit Irae
Sins of the Solar Empire (I feel like I'm the only person to absolutely hate this game with a passion)
Ah a fellow Sins hater! Maybe I hate it because I got suckered into buying it. But ok that's just me foolishly thinking "space game = must be good"
I started out with VGA Planets and along with Stars! are the games I played the most back in the day. Played some MOO2 too of course and have tried out a few of the games on that list of yours Martok. Just never really found the magic.
Sword of the Stars has some of the right focus that I want in a game along with real time tactical combat. Still its VGA Planets I always look back at as it had logistics that no other game wants to deal with properly. Plus I liked the idea of not having any techs to research.
CBR
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
First one I played was probably Spaceward Ho! (can't remember the version, it was around 1990). I've dabbled in Homeworld and Sword of the Stars, but never played them seriously. Bought MoO3 hoping it would be the end-all-be-all of space games, and was sorely disappointed. Played a lot of BotF, it's fun but there are problems (I really need to try the mods). MoOII is by far the best that I've played. At some point I should really try GalCiv2, but my gaming time is fairly limited these days.
time to install MoOII on my woman's laptop...
:thinking2:
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
I agree with Kekvit on the only two games I have of space strategy. Star Wars Empire at war had good but fairly limited space battles, and the rest of the game sucked pretty badly. Sins of a Solar Empire was boring as hell if you ask me, no variation between factions, no story/campaign. I played one game of it and haven't touched it since...
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
I guess Homeworld 2 should also be on the list over there. I got it pretty cheaply somewhere and played through the campaign, but unistalled it after I had beaten it. IMO, while it does give you the general gamestyle feeling as Homeworld, there just isn't enough new features to make the sequel feel like it is actually innovating instead of just Homeworld with updated story. (Also, the fact that you have to jump right after finishing a mission is just awful....I want to be able to rebuild my army to prepare for the next mission.....the Garden of Kadesh missions come to mind here from Homeworld)
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
As someone who grew up obsessed with sci-fi, it's one of my favorite types of games. But there haven't been that many really great ones, let alone "realistic" in the way that other strategy games sometimes shoot for at least some degree of realism.
I guess I've played most of the space strategy games over the years. Some standouts were Homeworld (although it was slanted more towards tactics), and MOO2 (a little too cartoonish, but fun). Right now I'm still playing GalCiv2/Twilight of the Arnor and it's the best I've seen lately. Very challenging at the upper difficulty settings, with interesting and varied tech trees. Yeah, it lacks tactical combat, but it's intended as a pure strategy game. You're the supreme commander of a civilization and you don't dirty your hands with leading each fleet into battle. The decisions you make about what types of fleet to build, and where to send them, are what matter. I know a lot of gamers don't like that strategy-only approach, and apparently Stardock will be adding tactical combat to GalCiv3. But that's years away.
I'm another one that didn't like Sins. I downloaded the demo on two separate occasions. I tried to like it, but it didn't grab me. The UI seemed weird and unintuitive, and I confess the graphic design was a turn-off. I know us strategy gaming fans aren't supposed to care about that. But still, the ship designs were unusually ugly (IMO), especially compared to the jewelry-crusted designs I've been whipping up in GalCiv2, and I don't want to command ugly ships. Maybe the full game would be better, but I read the manual and the overall design just didn't seem to have the kind of depth or atmosphere I'd like. Maybe if I get totally burned out on GalCiv later on, and nothing else is on the horizon, I'll pick it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Martok
Another question: What would your "dream" space game (assuming it doesn't already exist) consist of? What features would you need and/or really like to see?
It's a good thing I'm not a game developer, because I don't think most people would like the kind of ideal space games I'd make. It's probably the result of all that hard sci-fi I've read over the years.
For example, if I was designing a new cockpit level space fighter game, I'd use real Newtonian and relativistic physics. Lasers would hit their targets almost instantaneously, but beyond a certain distance you couldn't reliably target anything due to the lightspeed delay (can't know where your target is, if the light or other radiation your sensing hasn't reached you yet). It would be more like a submarine sim than the close-range, dogfighting Wing Commander nonsense we're used to.
For a strategy game, I'd want the vastness of space to be represented meaningfully on the strategic level. That means no magic jump gates or hyperdrives, which crowd planetary systems together on the gaming map. Make it so the player and the AI factions can travel just a hair under lightspeed, but no faster. Make the logistics of those distances matter for colonization, military offense and defense. Include the effects of lightspeed delay on your current intelligence and ability to know where the enemy might be. Many hard sci-fi writers have tackled this stuff, for example: Larry Niven (and collaborators) with the early, pre-hyperdrive phase of the Man-Kzin Wars, Alastair Reynolds with the Revelation Space series, lots more if you're familiar with the topic.
This would be a major break from the way space strategy games have been done in the past, which all use magic travel between objectives and factions. As much as I like GalCiv2, you could re-label the factions "Germany," "England," "France," and "Spain," and call the fleets wind-driven sailing ships, and the basic mechanics wouldn't be much different from any historical strategy game. That's what I'd like to see changed. Make it a real space game, where time and distance matter -- with a time dilation slider, of course, so gameplay happens at a reasonable rate. I think it would be interesting. Whether it would be fun or not, I don't know. It's hard to say, until someone actually tries doing a game like this.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Masamune
Much of this has been done already, but I'd like to see even more:
- variety in races with differing but balanced strengthes and weaknesses.
- differences in racial GUI interfaces, music, ship designs, objectives, and tactics
- a highly dynamic universe with numerous setup parameters that allow me to design and play a wider variety of scenarios
- a dynamic tech three that was a bit different each game, one where certain innovations were available through research only by certain races, or even one race. Other races would have to acquire these special technologies through espionage, trade, or capture and reverse engineering.
- intricate espionage and diplomacy models/engines. Much more involved that in the games I've played in the past. I want to be able to play scenarios with heavy-duty politics (or not, if I choose in my initial game set up).
For what it's worth, GalCiv 2 actually has a lot of these features you've mentioned, especially if you have both expansion packs (Dark Avatar and Twilight of the Arnor). To highlight a few aspects:
The game's diplomacy system maybe doesn't appear very intricate per se, but it's surprisingly robust underneath. Alliances are actually meaningful, and it's perfectly possible to manipulate two or more races into going to war with each other (often useful when race A is threatening you and/or in your way, so you pay off race B to attack them). Also, races generally don't declare war at the drop of a hat or for no good reason; i.e., if you're race C's biggest trading partner, they'll be much less likely to attack you (since who wants to destroy one of their major sources of income?). If someone declares war on you, you'll usually see it coming.
If you have the TotA expansion, every race has their own tech tree, including technologies specific to that particular race. Also, the various races are pretty well balanced (you have the option of disabling their "Super Abilities" if you think they throw things too far out of whack), and you can always further tweak them to your satisfaction. You can also create your own races and save them for use in later campaigns if you wish.
In fact, the game's degree of customization in general is just absurd -- you can set the map size, density of stars, planets, habitable planets, anomalies, etc. You also determine the number of races, individual intelligence/difficulty level of said races, even their ethical alignment (good, neutral, evil). One of the big reasons this game has such a high replayability factor is the degree to which you can customize everything. There's very little you *can't* change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crandaeolon
GalCivs lack the crucial space combat aspect, and SE IV / V races are just bland and boring. Sins is a rather shallow game.
I concur with all three statements. I love GalCiv 2, but the lack of tactical space battles is a major sore spot for me. Also, I would argue that the Space Empire games have too much stuff -- I always feel overwhelmed by the enormous number of ships, buildings, and technologies at my disposal. Sins is fun for the fleet battles, but I agree it's pretty shallow otherwise.
Also, I don't like that in Sins, the only way to take over planets militarily is to wipe out the current population and recolonize. As it happens, I have the same problem with Sword of the Stars. I mean seriously, why couldn't they include good old-fashioned invasion and conquest? I strongly dislike it when my options are limited to genocide. :gah2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crandaeolon
So, are you actually playing the current version and is that any good?
One of my buddies picked up the game several months back, and I've played it on his PC a few times. Compared to the demo, it's....better. I'd still hesitate to recommend it, however, as the game's sheer size still makes it difficult to properly run an interstellar empire. Also, I have to admit the inability to control tactical combat still really bothers me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CBR
I started out with VGA Planets and along with Stars! are the games I played the most back in the day. Played some MOO2 too of course and have tried out a few of the games on that list of yours Martok. Just never really found the magic.
Well for what it's worth, there's only a small handful of those games I still play. In addition to BOTF and GalCiv 2, I only have Spaceward Ho! IV and Star Wars: Empire at War currently installed on my PC. I wish I still had Imperium Galactica 2 and Homeworld, but I somehow managed to lose my copies. :wall:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CBR
Sword of the Stars has some of the right focus that I want in a game along with real time tactical combat. Still its VGA Planets I always look back at as it had logistics that no other game wants to deal with properly. Plus I liked the idea of not having any techs to research.
CBR
Yeah, Sword of the Stars actually looks pretty good. Unfortunately, I can't get past my previously-mentioned hangup with being forced to blow up the existing population instead of just conquering them. Also, it feels distinctly more military-oriented to me; I'd really like to have another option than just "take over the whole map by force".
Never played VGA Planets, although I certainly know of it. How did the gameplay work exactly, especially if there wasn't any tech to research?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
drone
Played a lot of BotF, it's fun but there are problems (I really need to try the mods).
I can recommend both the Balance of Power Mod (BOP) and/or the Ultimate Dominion Mod 3 (UDM3). :yes:
The former is often described as BOTF as it *should've* been, and I agree with that assessment -- it just feels much better balanced overall (hence the mod's name), and the major races now tend to play a bit more like they should. Of course, UDM3 alters the game even more dramatically since it replaces the Ferengi with the Dominion (although the Ferengi are still in the game as a minor race), and it radically redoes the shiplists for all 5 powers (including new ship graphics, which look incredible).
Either way, you can't really go wrong with either one. :2thumbsup:
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crandaeolon
Hate with a passion? "Dislike" I could understand, it is a rather shallow game after all, but it is definitely a decent game by any objective standard. What, then, is your beef with it?
This:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elite Ferret
Sins of a Solar Empire was boring as hell if you ask me, no variation between factions, no story/campaign. I played one game of it and haven't touched it since...
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zenicetus
Right now I'm still playing GalCiv2/Twilight of the Arnor and it's the best I've seen lately. Very challenging at the upper difficulty settings, with interesting and varied tech trees.
Since I'm currently playing vanilla GalCiv 2 (I'm waiting/hoping for a full bundle to be released in an actual box), I have to ask: How does the AI compare? I know it received a major upgrade in Dark Avatar, and again with Twilight of the Arnor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zenicetus
I know a lot of gamers don't like that strategy-only approach, and apparently Stardock will be adding tactical combat to GalCiv3. But that's years away.
Yeah, I know. *sigh* Brad recently said that we definitely won't see the next GalCiv game this decade, which I pretty much expected -- I know Stardock already has their hands full working on their fantasy strategy game. Still, it's hard to wait sometimes! :sweatdrop:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zenicetus
For a strategy game, I'd want the vastness of space to be represented meaningfully on the strategic level. That means no magic jump gates or hyperdrives, which crowd planetary systems together on the gaming map. Make it so the player and the AI factions can travel just a hair under lightspeed, but no faster.
I hate to point this out, but wouldn't that make space travel completely impractical? While I've not brushed up on my astronomy recently, I'm still pretty sure that it would take years -- if not decades -- to travel to other stars even *at* light-speed, to say nothing of near light-speed. :book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zenicetus
Make the logistics of those distances matter for colonization, military offense and defense. Include the effects of lightspeed delay on your current intelligence and ability to know where the enemy might be.
Well I would say that most space strategy games already take this into account, at least to a degree. Or are you saying you want stars so far apart (at least time-wise) that colonies would essentially be on their own? I'm not quite sure I follow you here.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Martok
I can recommend both the Balance of Power Mod (BOP) and/or the Ultimate Dominion Mod 3 (UDM3). :yes:
The former is often described as BOTF as it *should've* been, and I agree with that assessment -- it just feels much better balanced overall (hence the mod's name), and the major races now tend to play a bit more like they should. Of course, UDM3 alters the game even more dramatically since it replaces the Ferengi with the Dominion (although the Ferengi are still in the game as a minor race), and it radically redoes the shiplists for all 5 powers (including new ship graphics, which look incredible).
Either way, you can't really go wrong with either one. :2thumbsup:
Did the mods sort out the problem with upgrading factories? That takes forever due to how they compute production. And will the Borg show up on turn 10 and wipe everybody out still? ~:rolleyes:
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
.
So, can a list of recommendable games be made upon a limited level of agreement? My hibernation time has arrived and I'm thirsty for good games, namely strategy and RPG. :computer:
.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
GalCiv2 + expansions
Sins of a solar empire
Sword of the stars collectors edition (includes expansion plus other goodies)
Space empires V
Star Wars: empire at war
Imperium galactica 2
Star Wars: supremacy
Star Wars: galactic battlegrounds (the game which let me know I'd had enough of RTS games)
Star wars: force comander
Homeworld
Freelancer
If freelancer counts then X: beyond the frontier and X3: gold probably do too.
Some of those have yet to be played (SE V, SotS, X3, empire at war) :shame: Others have been played to death and beyond :loveg:
I played the demo of BotF heavily yet never owned it. I couldn't afford it when it first came out, and couldn't find it later.
Sword of the stars was panned when it first came out so I ignored it totally. Then a bit ago I saw the announcement of the expansion on the quartertothree forums. The thread filled up with people declaring their love for the fully patched game plus first expansion. Can't wait until I get chance to settle down, read the lengthy documentation, and install the thing.
Sins wasn't all that for me either. It felt too much like age of empires and those other RTS games I got sick of many years ago. Start small, spam research and resource gathering, build flash army, skirmish while you build uber army, slowly stomp all over your enemy's base and win. Not enough to do away from that line, not enough variety from game to game. I haven't tried it with that big patch they released a bit ago; that's supposed to alter a lot.
[quote=Since I'm currently playing vanilla GalCiv 2 (I'm waiting/hoping for a full bundle to be released in an actual box), I have to ask: How does the AI compare? I know it received a major upgrade in Dark Avatar, and again with Twilight of the Arnor.[/quote]
It's been ages since I played vanilla Galciv2, and I'm not terribly aware of what AI tweaks have been done on it since Dread Lords release, so take this view with a measure of salt. It's a good improvement. The AI is less vulnerable to typical cheese, and has fewer senile moments. New strategies have been added to its book. I think it processes its turns faster. Obviously there's a lot which has been added specifically for the new features such as the race specific tech trees.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
drone
Did the mods sort out the problem with upgrading factories? That takes forever due to how they compute production.
They're both certainly better in this regard, yes. Whether they're enough of an improvement for your personal tastes, however, I obviously couldn't say. Best to judge such things for yourself. :yes:
Balance of Power Mod
Ultimate Dominion Mod III
Quote:
Originally Posted by
drone
And will the Borg show up on turn 10 and wipe everybody out still? ~:rolleyes:
The Borg's stats have been changed (in both mods) so that they're not so ridiculously overpowered. A fleet will now usually be able to take down a single cube with more reasonable losses than in the vanilla game.
They're still a problem, however, because their ability to spawn multiple cubes is apparently hard-coded and can't be changed. Thus, players on harder difficulty setting can (and do) see five or more cubes running around killing everyone. It can be an effective way to win the game if they're picking on your enemies, but it also then can end up making it way too easy -- you can just follow the Borg and colonize the empty systems they leave behind. And even with cloaked warships, you'd still need an awfully big armada to take down that many Borg vessels (even if it was in succession and not all at once).
It's for that reason that I've always played with Random Events turned off....and continue to do so. One cube I could handle, but half a dozen? Not so much. :no: Both mods alleviate the problem somewhat, but not completely. Unless the BOTF modding community were to ever get access to the hard-coded files, the Borg will continue to be unbalanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mouzafphaerre
.
So, can a list of recommendable games be made upon a limited level of agreement? My hibernation time has arrived and I'm thirsty for good games, namely strategy and RPG. :computer:
.
Is there anything you particularly like or dislike in space strategy games? Knowing that would help in making a recommendation. :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
frogbeastegg
Sword of the stars was panned when it first came out so I ignored it totally. Then a bit ago I saw the announcement of the expansion on the quartertothree forums. The thread filled up with people declaring their love for the fully patched game plus first expansion. Can't wait until I get chance to settle down, read the lengthy documentation, and install the thing.
I would be very interested in hearing what your take is. Despite the lack of planetary conquest, I remain rather intrigued by the game's overall premise and design, and wouldn't rule out getting it if it's otherwise good. ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
frogbeastegg
It's been ages since I played vanilla Galciv2, and I'm not terribly aware of what AI tweaks have been done on it since Dread Lords release, so take this view with a measure of salt. It's a good improvement. The AI is less vulnerable to typical cheese, and has fewer senile moments. New strategies have been added to its book. I think it processes its turns faster. Obviously there's a lot which has been added specifically for the new features such as the race specific tech trees.
Appreciate the feedback, Froggy. :bow:
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Martok
I would be very interested in hearing what your take is. Despite the lack of planetary conquest, I remain rather intrigued by the game's overall premise and design, and wouldn't rule out getting it if it's otherwise good. ~:)
It's probably going to be a while. Currently I'm playing games like "Interview tycoon II, the search for a part-time supervisor " and "Stock overload: where shall I put these next 300 books?" When I get home I'm all strategied out.
I'll give you a link to the thread which got me interested in the game. The people on that forum are a mature bunch and I've found their collective opinions on various titles well worth reading.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Martok
Since I'm currently playing vanilla GalCiv 2 (I'm waiting/hoping for a full bundle to be released in an actual box), I have to ask: How does the AI compare? I know it received a major upgrade in Dark Avatar, and again with Twilight of the Arnor.
The AI is noticeably better overall in TA compared to the original. Although, it's somewhat complicated by the way each faction AI now has to optimize a different (and in some cases radically different) tech tree. That was a little shaky at first, but it seems to have settled out now. And Brad is still doing small tweaks AFAIK. You'll notice the difference if you get the TA expansion. It's really a whole new game.
Quote:
I hate to point this out, but wouldn't that make space travel completely impractical? While I've not brushed up on my astronomy recently, I'm still pretty sure that it would take years -- if not decades -- to travel to other stars even *at* light-speed, to say nothing of near light-speed. :book:
If relativistic effects are included (and we assume ships powerful enough to accellerate to lightspeed quickly), then what's practical depends on whether you're on the ship, or stuck on the planets. :beam:
With time dilation, a trip covering vast interstellar distances might take only weeks or months, from the crew's perspective. They could planet-hop in almost the same way as games that use jump gates or hyperdrive. However, back on the planets, centuries of population growth, wars, and tech development would be taking place. So you'd have a strategy game of overlapping timelines.... time running "slow" for the planets, and "fast" for anyone aboard ship. On the flip side, it might seem like technological advancement was radically sped up on planets, from the crew's perspective.
Fleets of conquest might not know exactly what they're getting into, on arrival at an enemy system. Localized battles inside star systems would probably be all-or-nothing, with no reinforcements (unless you plan your conquest in successive waves of fleets, spaced out over several years' time). Instead of a Fog of War, we'd have a Fog of Time, where things would be unpredictable. It might throw some interesting monkey wrenches into the game. Or maybe it would be unplayable as a game. I dunno... nobody has tried this.
Quote:
Or are you saying you want stars so far apart (at least time-wise) that colonies would essentially be on their own? I'm not quite sure I follow you here.
Colonies would be separated from each other in the time dimension, but not completely on their own. There would be regular trade with starships, but the news the ships would carry of other planets would be old. There could still be close to realtime action with battles inside a star system, between different factions. Maybe that's where most of the battles would take place, although slow-paced chases between fleets at relativistic speeds, taking place over centuries of static-reference time, might be interesting too. Different than anything else we've seen, at any rate.
I don't know.... maybe not enough people would enjoy this. The most realistic "space travel" sim using present day tech is Orbiter (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/). If you've tried it, you know it's difficult enough that only a few hardcore people spend much time with it. A game like this might need some artificial gimmicks like instantaneous communication with lightspeed-limited physical travel, so trade and intel would be workable. It's a different enough concept that I can't see any of the majors risking it. But maybe an indie developer might try it, someday.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Martok
Yeah, Sword of the Stars actually looks pretty good. Unfortunately, I can't get past my previously-mentioned hangup with being forced to blow up the existing population instead of just conquering them. Also, it feels distinctly more military-oriented to me; I'd really like to have another option than just "take over the whole map by force".
Never played VGA Planets, although I certainly know of it. How did the gameplay work exactly, especially if there wasn't any tech to research?
A new expansion is coming out October 10 and that should have planetary surrender. There is an updated demo if you have not already tried it. There are also some video walkthroughs here
It does indeed focus mainly on military conquest although expansions are bringing in more stuff. In that sense the game is close to VGA Planets and Stars! gameplay, although turns do not take as much work and it generally has more turns compared to the older games that were PBEM.
In VGA Planets 3 you had 4 different techs: Hull, Beam weapons, Torpedo weapons and Engines and they were from 1 to 10. You already knew the techs but had to spend money increasing it to what level you wanted on each starbase. So it was more a question of money and what you wanted to use the starbase for.
The advantage of that approach was that you could, depending on money and planets found, start building good quality warships by perhaps turn 15. That is IMO essential in a PBEM whereas Stars! used regular research which meant it was actually good to not get involved in wars in the beginning unless you could get an easy win (and that only happens against new players)
CBR
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Is there anything you particularly like or dislike in space strategy games? Knowing that would help in making a recommendation. :yes:
Well, it will be my first time with Space Strats. :embarassed: But you can count me in with AOE-style unlovers. :yes:
.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
I bought BotF back when it first came out, and for the most part I really liked it. I remember taking screenies of my Romulan War Birds in an exploding formation and making a desktop out it which looked really cool.
I got frustrated because I had an aging computer, and if my memory serves me right, as the game progressed it took longer and longer to process a turn, to the point where it became nigh unplayable. With regret, I retired the game. That was about when Shogun hit the market and it was bye bye space games until SFC Orion Pirates and eventually, MOO III.
Last August when I went back west to liquidate a majority of my things, I tossed SFC OP, BotF and Imperium Galactica I and II into the trash bin. I'm regretting that now, having just visited the BotF mod site. Gah.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Masamune
I got frustrated because I had an aging computer, and if my memory serves me right, as the game progressed it took longer and longer to process a turn, to the point where it became nigh unplayable. With regret, I retired the game.
There's a memory leak in there somewhere. The longer you play the game, the longer it took to run through the end-turn phase and the better the chance for a lockup. Once my empire got big, I would basically save and exit every 5-6 turns just to make it playable. There were also serious problems in LAN multiplayer, games would hang fairly regularly, but the multiplay game itself was pretty decent.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mouzafphaerre
.But you can count me in with AOE-style unlovers. :yes:
.
Well at least that rules out titles like Homeworld, Nexus, and Sins. Do you have particular preference for turn-based strategy games (such as the Civilization series) or real-time strategy games (like the Europa Universalis series)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Masamune
I bought BotF back when it first came out, and for the most part I really liked it. I remember taking screenies of my Romulan War Birds in an exploding formation and making a desktop out it which looked really cool.
I got frustrated because I had an aging computer, and if my memory serves me right, as the game progressed it took longer and longer to process a turn, to the point where it became nigh unplayable. With regret, I retired the game. That was about when Shogun hit the market and it was bye bye space games until SFC Orion Pirates and eventually, MOO III.
As drone said, there's a memory leak that causes a significant slowdown between turns (usually around Turn 120). It's easily the worst bug in the game, and of course it can't be fixed because the problem is in the files that are hard-coded. :wall: (Incidentally, this is another reason I would love to see BOTF on Good Old Games -- maybe they could finally fix it.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Masamune
Last August when I went back west to liquidate a majority of my things, I tossed SFC OP, BotF and Imperium Galactica I and II into the trash bin. I'm regretting that now, having just visited the BotF mod site. Gah.
Sorry to hear that, man. :sad:
Yeah, I think a big reason BOTF has retained such a loyal following over the years is because of all the mods that are available for it. The BOP & UDM3 mods are only two of the most popular -- there's also the Ultimate Mod (currently in its 4th version), the Uncivil War mod, the Planet & Building mod, etc. There's supposedly even a mod that allows you to play as the Borg (although I'm not sure how playable it is). ~;)
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
.
I have no TB vs. RT preference. ~:)
.
-
Re: Space strategy roll-call!
Quote:
Sins of a Solar Empire was boring as hell if you ask me, no variation between factions, no story/campaign.
I didn't feel these were particularly hate-worthy points, but yes they could be considered weaknesses. The different playstyles of the factions open up only after some time of playing, but then you'll encounter the general shallowness and lack of balance (at least until versions 1.03-1.04, when I stopped playing.) The lack of campaign is a non-issue to me (how many RTS games have campaigns actually worth playing?), but it's quite understandably a weakness of Sins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
The UI seemed weird and unintuitive
This is somewhat baffling, though - the UI is generally considered one of the strong points of Sins. Could you elaborate a bit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I would argue that the Space Empire games have too much stuff -- I always feel overwhelmed by the enormous number of ships, buildings, and technologies at my disposal.
Yes, Space Empire series is a bit too complex for its own good. It does try to alleviate the complexity with a lot of automation options, but doesn't do it very elegantly.
Maybe it's time to give Sword of the Stars another whirl. The lack of peaceful options never bothered me - gotta bomb 'em fugly tentacle dudes to oblivion anyways ~;) - but the shoddy combat interface and unsuitability for multiplayer did.
