Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Most species in DW1 are fully aware there are other species

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

In DW1 you usually have 3 habitable planets (just add technology) in your home System.

quote:

ORIGINAL: arvcran2

This is a good time to ask, where did this list come from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miletkir
Looks like there's been an orbiting planets frenzy...

quote:

ORIGINAL: swappan

Orbiting planets dont add anything to the game at all. Only annoyance to keep moving the screen or constantly locking into a planet. Also needless computational power which is better spend otherwise. Glad they didnt make it in. The moved too slow to notice really anyway. And who misses them just remember that you can just move your sceen constantly with same effect

I really would like to see a factory mechanic in DW2 with raw and processed resources. This ties in really well with the unique economy system and real resource transportation. Would also limit the abundance of resources that was present in DW1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MTGian

quote:

ORIGINAL: swappan

Orbiting planets dont add anything to the game at all. Only annoyance to keep moving the screen or constantly locking into a planet. Also needless computational power which is better spend otherwise. Glad they didnt make it in. The moved too slow to notice really anyway. And who misses them just remember that you can just move your sceen constantly with same effect

I really would like to see a factory mechanic in DW2 with raw and processed resources. This ties in really well with the unique economy system and real resource transportation. Would also limit the abundance of resources that was present in DW1.

I would not go so far as to say that it adds nothing, but the orbiting planets is mostly just a cool visual. The planets move slowly enough that outside of pre-warp, you can ignore the movement entirely.

Does that mean the cool visual brings nothing to the game? No, I am not saying that. Visuals do matter. It is like cool special effects in a movie. That does matter, but story (gameplay) matters more. To take this analogy a step further, my last post on "uniqueness" could be interpreted as a request for more character development.

I voted for the raw/processed/manufactured resources, but I don't really know what that would mean as far as gameplay. I just think more economic depth would be cool. That depth could be in the handling of resources, but it could also be more economic depth when it comes to planets.

Planets are pretty simplistic in DW1. Other games have adopted a Civ-like system where the player actually spends resources to build buildings on planets. DW1 has a tiny bit of that with some special projects. My impression is DW2 will expand on that. I think that is a good idea, although I wonder what implementation would be the most fun.

My preference would be something that makes planets feel more alive. I find the Civ-like implementation in other games to be *very* boardgame-like and that gives the opposite of realism for me. This feels like a good topic for a separate thread.

The thing that I will finish this post with is that realism when it comes to gameplay involves mechanics that a player influences rather than controls directly. To use a planet as an example, a planet should build agriculture, manufacturing, research facilities, etc without the player's involvement. If the player has to control each of these, then that does not feel real. However, the player could influence this development by providing extra money, lowering taxes, commissioning special projects, etc. If a planet is developed differently by the AI based upon the quality/characteristics of the planet, which can still be influenced by the player, then you have hit the sweet spot. Mix in different priorities and development styles for different races and you have something incredible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: MTGian

quote:

ORIGINAL: swappan

Orbiting planets dont add anything to the game at all. Only annoyance to keep moving the screen or constantly locking into a planet. Also needless computational power which is better spend otherwise. Glad they didnt make it in. The moved too slow to notice really anyway. And who misses them just remember that you can just move your sceen constantly with same effect

I really would like to see a factory mechanic in DW2 with raw and processed resources. This ties in really well with the unique economy system and real resource transportation. Would also limit the abundance of resources that was present in DW1.

I would not go so far as to say that it adds nothing, but the orbiting planets is mostly just a cool visual. The planets move slowly enough that outside of pre-warp, you can ignore the movement entirely.

Does that mean the cool visual brings nothing to the game? No, I am not saying that. Visuals do matter. It is like cool special effects in a movie. That does matter, but story (gameplay) matters more. To take this analogy a step further, my last post on "uniqueness" could be interpreted as a request for more character development.

I voted for the raw/processed/manufactured resources, but I don't really know what that would mean as far as gameplay. I just think more economic depth would be cool. That depth could be in the handling of resources, but it could also be more economic depth when it comes to planets.

Planets are pretty simplistic in DW1. Other games have adopted a Civ-like system where the player actually spends resources to build buildings on planets. DW1 has a tiny bit of that with some special projects. My impression is DW2 will expand on that. I think that is a good idea, although I wonder what implementation would be the most fun.

My preference would be something that makes planets feel more alive. I find the Civ-like implementation in other games to be *very* boardgame-like and that gives the opposite of realism for me. This feels like a good topic for a separate thread.

The thing that I will finish this post with is that realism when it comes to gameplay involves mechanics that a player influences rather than controls directly. To use a planet as an example, a planet should build agriculture, manufacturing, research facilities, etc without the player's involvement. If the player has to control each of these, then that does not feel real. However, the player could influence this development by providing extra money, lowering taxes, commissioning special projects, etc. If a planet is developed differently by the AI based upon the quality/characteristics of the planet, which can still be influenced by the player, then you have hit the sweet spot. Mix in different priorities and development styles for different races and you have something incredible.

One thing that sort of don't exist are trade between planets in terms of their civilian economies. In my opinion civilian trade probably should be one of the most common thing that civilian ships do and should in this case be part of the game. This can be part of a resource manufacturing system where planets tend to overproduce certain things and importing others. So instead of resources raising the development level it is these produced goods that does which will then act as catalyst of trade between planets who consume resources to produce them. Most of these produced goods would sort of replace luxury resources, the one that exist now would instead be used to produce different civilian goods.

Aside from this there could also be more governmental buildings and projects one can do to either enhance planets or make them strategic from a military perspective. You can have military academies, galactic stock exchanges or centres of trade projects, galactic universities and many, many more stuff.

This would make individual planets more valuable and immersive as they can be important both from a trade perspective or that you have built some specific important project on them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
Isn't that alrady in DW1?
No planets will produce every Luxury and Strategic Resource it needs for growth. But there is sure to be a planet or mining station that does. If it is a planet, you get interplanetary trade. And planets should be prefered, given that you might be able to transport something in both directions.

Maybe they could add some inherent tourism between planets? IIRC tourism in 1 was only towards places with bonus scenery (and propably a resort base), but there should be some tourism attraction for every planet. Especially if it is a different clime and as high quality/development.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miletkir

I know food is abstracted within the private sector, but I wonder if it wouldn't be worth adding as a limiting factor. Historically, it has always been a central element controlling the expansion of empires and the length of wars. On that note, to me, war weariness shouldn't be an abstracted penalty either. It should be a consequence of direct resource and maintenance costs increase.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raagun

Weird that people mostly want things which add practically nothing to game.
Orbiting planets -> visual only. And **** ton of work on programming level.
Resources -> DW is not about resource management essentially. DW only cares about resources on strategic level. Except fuel which is really operational thing. So adding essentially resource management minigame will be bad for game overall I think.

Fight me!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raagun

I see more in depth resource part as industry expansion. I see that as ships requiring maintenance and parts which require established industrial base. Basically extra layer on fuel management. But would require industrialized worlds, space ports and something else. This could be really interesting expansion. But it doesnt even require "manufactured resources" actually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

Food really have not been an issue for developed nations since before the industrial revolution and a galactic civilisation would only need basic minerals and energy (the stars) to provide all the food they need.