Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brainsucker
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brainsucker

well, yes. I agree with you, Malevolence; and Feelotraveller you got the point too.

Let us use DW as the example. Ok, DW has beam, missile, torpedo, and starfighters. Yes, you can make (if not a lot, many) tactical choice with them. But because they are all offered at the same time (the beginning) to the players, thus make this weapon as the weapon of the same era of warfare.

But, what next? What happen to the future? What happen to the next era? We are talking about conquering a galaxy (with 700 stars at least).

now let see to the historical war ship. From the simple Trireme to our current Nimitz class Carrier. We can simply say that Trireme come from different era to a Frigate, and a Galleon came from another different era to the WW 1 era of warship.

The concept still the same, they are warship. But their capability is different. With trireme, you will attack the enemy with arrow, but with frigate, you attack them with cannon. yes, both of them are the tool to kill. But it change the way of a ship maneuver and attack the enemy. Then come to the WW 2 type of Cruiser or Battleship, and now our current era warship. They are all different, even when they are all warship, and the officer still consider them the same.

It should be true to 4x game in space too. The earliest era of warship should be more simple but limited in capability. The space is vast. How could the end of game technology has the same trait as the earliest version of it (with only different HP, etc). A starship that has the capability to travel hundred of sectors should have different capability than the earliest starship who can only travel within the star system. Because they face different challenge than the earliest one. The concept of fleet management should be different, too.

For example, the invention of holographic technology will open a whole branch of holographic technology, like creating the image of your starship. But also holographic HUD in your flagship that can control the whole fleet better.

and now look at the formula of design feature of the game. At the beginning of the game, to operate a starship you need a bridge, engine, reactor, life support, crew quarters, and a hyperdrive engine. for a warship, you need some beam (3 - 5 units) shield and armor. And what happen to your latest warship when you have conquer half of the galaxy?

Oh yes, a bridge, more engine, more life support, more reactor, more crew quarters, and a better hyperdrive engine. Plus you will have more weapons (more units than before), more shield, more armor, etc.

Well, there is nothing wrong with it, except the feel of no changing era. Because, well, your ship is only bigger and has more weapons than at the beginning of the game. The concept of the earliest era still true. You have beam, torpedo, missile, and starfighter. You don't have the feel of... or... you can't tell the different between the starship from the 23th century and the one from 24th century.

This is my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brainsucker

So, give us the experience of evolving warfare, not just a unit with better stats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

I'll try not to belabor the point, but "tactics are the art and science of employing all available means to win battles and engagements. Specifically, it comprises the actions taken by a commander to arrange units and activities in relation to each other and the enemy."

Raap hits the nail on the head.  Technology most effects how you arrange elements/ships/units (based on speed, range, firepower, survivability, etc.) and activities (attack, defense, reconnaissance, movement to contact, etc.). That said, a naval officer will describe the effect of modern surface-to-surface missiles in the same way carrier-based aircraft worked in WWII -- pulses of firepower and "attack effectively first" for example. The use of drones and other innovative capabilities don't change the tenets -- just the probabilistic combat models (and speed of the commander's decision cycle).

What almost all games fail to model are the external, developmental effects on warfare -- political, diplomatic and moral influences for instance.  Why is an adversary armed with 305 Enfield Mark III's from 1907 standing toe-to-toe against power with nuclear weapons (or nerve agent) for instance?  DW makes some good attempts -- penalties for attacking races that are already part of population, etc. -- but it's very basic. There are no research penalties/modifiers based on government type or reputation that I know about for instance.  There are no treaty restrictions to break overtly or covertly. You can't be unseated from control of your empire or assassinated for genocide, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baleur

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

I'll try not to belabor the point, but "tactics are the art and science of employing all available means to win battles and engagements. Specifically, it comprises the actions taken by a commander to arrange units and activities in relation to each other and the enemy."

Raap hits the nail on the head.  Technology most effects how you arrange elements/ships/units (based on speed, range, firepower, survivability, etc.) and activities (attack, defense, reconnaissance, movement to contact, etc.). That said, a naval officer will describe the effect of modern surface-to-surface missiles in the same way carrier-based aircraft worked in WWII -- pulses of firepower and "attack effectively first" for example. The use of drones and other innovative capabilities don't change the tenets -- just the probabilistic combat models (and speed of the commander's decision cycle).

What almost all games fail to model are the external, developmental effects on warfare -- political, diplomatic and moral influences for instance.  Why is an adversary armed with 305 Enfield Mark III's from 1907 standing toe-to-toe against power with nuclear weapons (or nerve agent) for instance?  DW makes some good attempts -- penalties for attacking races that are already part of population, etc. -- but it's very basic. There are no research penalties/modifiers based on government type or reputation that I know about for instance.  There are no treaty restrictions to break overtly or covertly. You can't be unseated from control of your empire or assassinated for genocide, etc.

You're making examples from WW2, which is quite recently in galactic timescales. Heck we still use WW2 weapons in many parts of the world, because they are just guns, modern guns are the same just with a higher "accuracy or dps" stat, lol.

But think of a space game, SPACE! Colonizing planets. Think of timescales of 100, 1000 or 10,000 years.
I agree that the baseline concept of war never changes since the ancient eras, but the WAY wars are fought change drastically.
To say that it doesnt is folly, the Japanese would strongly disagree with you on that one westeners brought gunpowder weapons to them. Their entire way of waging war, honorable warfare, was shook up and turned upside down. Many of them, while disgusted by the dishonorable idea of killing a man by a bullet, were simply forced to completely change the way they fought wars lest the would be overrun by their enemies with now superior weapons (and ways the battles were fought).

You simply can not fight a battle with muskets the same way you fought with bow and arrow.
I know you make alot of examples regarding how this is tactics, but yeah, thats what it is. But it is also strategy.
The appearance of aircraft carriers also completely changed many strategic aspects of warfare. Imagine a mere 1000 years ago when naval battles had next to no impact what so ever on landlocked countries?
Today, an aircraft carrier can bring death and destruction to an otherwise well defended bastion, from any direction.

If that isnt an evolution and radical change in how wars are fought, i dont know what is.
Yes one could argue that "oh, the bombs from the airplanes are just another form of swords striking the enemy". But by that logic we might as well simplify everything down to ridiculous levels and claim that a nuclear bomb is just a more effective way of throwing a rock at an orangutang..

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
snip
I was not convinced by any of the new weapons systems in the previous expansion really brought much to the table apart from making the A.I worse as it does not counter your designs at all.More choices would make it even worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brainsucker

what about splitting the research to some era. For example, the earliest era, the middle era, the later era, the galaxy era, and move on

Each era will have their own technology and concept. The more era of technology you go, the smaller the galaxy of 700 stars you feel. At the end of the game, you will be able to consider the whole galaxy map as the battle ground, when you wages war with somebody.