Space strategy roll-call!

[Zenicetus]

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.

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.

[Martok]

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.

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!

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.

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.

[Zenicetus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.