GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

TheDespot -> GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 2:08:31 PM)

I beleive that Galactic Civilisations 2 and Space empires V are some of the best modern 4X games in existence at the moment. However I was pleasantly surprised to find that distant worlds easily outstrips SEV in concept and in practice. In fact I find it hard to find a clear winner when comparing GalCiv and Distant worlds. Both have decent AI and make gameplay simple yet so full of depth.

I am curious to know how other players rate Distant worlds when compared to other previous 4X games?



2guncohen -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 2:46:26 PM)

I know one thing for sure.

If this game goes multiplayer they would be the leading 4x game !!!






Registered55 -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 2:52:37 PM)

space empires 5 was great with the BMod, but man was it slow,

no multi-threading, the speed of the game killed it for me,

if only SE5 could be multi-threaded, with x3 and x4 CPU's becoming standard now, man SE5 would of been a great game to get into,

but unfortunately I always had to call it a day, 2-6 minutes staring at a "Processing" screen, is not my idea of fun....

on some medium size galaxies with medium amount of AI players game turns could be upto 6-12 minutes waiting for turn processing....................... yeah like that would take off,

SE5 should of been re-written with Multi-threading in mind, but no developer wants or can do it, (same goes to distant worlds aswell)



TheDespot -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 3:24:10 PM)

God I remember the speed was awful, I would normally have to flip to a good few news articles to wait it out in between turns towards the end game.
I also found this game to be micromanagement hell with retrofitting being an absolute pain. In addition I found the Ai to be really dumb, for instance often signing treaties that would stop all its research or banning technologies that did not even exist.



the1sean -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 3:35:20 PM)

Distant Worlds wins, GalCiv2 was good, but distant worlds has much more satisfying ship design and combat. I also prefer the backstory and races in Distant Worlds to GC2. The big thing with SEV for me was ship design, but it lacked in so many other areas. DW took the best parts of the ship design from SEV, but simplified it and left out some of the more annoying issues (like mines). Some people may prefer that, but I dont.

The big clinchers are the Automation/Suggestion features, and the Living Economy. Pure awesomeness. Distant Worlds is innovative and smart. Codeforce has also supported the game extremely well. I look forward to all the things to come, from little patches that improve moddability, to the planned expansion. [sm=happy0029.gif]



Grotius -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 4:09:42 PM)

Well, one big difference is that Distant Worlds is real-time, whereas Gal Civ 2 and SE5 are turn-based. I normally prefer turn-based games, but Distant Worlds has made me something of a convert. Right now if I had to pick only one, I'd go with DW. It's a different experience. I agree with Sean that its galaxy feels more "alive" to me. And with everything set to manual, I feel like I have plenty of micromanaging goodness to keep me happy -- but you can set some stuff to auto if you prefer.



ASHBERY76 -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 6:58:37 PM)

My 4X ranking
1.MOO2
2.SOTS with all Expansions
3.Distant Worlds


176.Galciv2.



Gertjan -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 7:09:55 PM)

Really, why? For me the interface of galciv2 was better, more polished, but the automation in DW is amazing.



vonboy -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 7:22:55 PM)

This is one of my favorite 4x games, second only to SE IV (SE V had more features and modability, but turns took forever to process and the ui was crap).



2guncohen -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 8:19:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonboy

This is one of my favorite 4x games, second only to SE IV (SE V had more features and modability, but turns took forever to process and the ui was crap).



Always wanted to play SE IV Multiplayer [&:]
SE IV is for the moment for me no uno then followed by Distant Worlds.



Igard -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 9:55:53 PM)

1. Distant Worlds
2. Birth of the Federation
3. MoO2
4. GalCiv 2
5. Sword of the Stars

That's my top 5.





TheDespot -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 11:37:47 PM)

Birth of the federation I had totally forgot what an amzing game that really was. Just so you know they are releasing an official sequel to the game which is in alpha at the moment.
http://www.startreksupremacy.com/

I also agree with Moo2 that was amazing however Moo3 really make Jesus cry!



TheDespot -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/20/2010 11:38:38 PM)

In addition I find SOTS to be a great game, I sometimes wish more games had such attention to combat mechanics.



adecoy95 -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/21/2010 12:11:36 AM)

distant worlds would be king if it was moddable



kentcol -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/21/2010 5:05:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheDespot

Birth of the federation I had totally forgot what an amzing game that really was. Just so you know they are releasing an official sequel to the game which is in alpha at the moment.
http://www.startreksupremacy.com/

I also agree with Moo2 that was amazing however Moo3 really make Jesus cry!



The latest news for that game was in May, 2008. Not too promising. :(



Baleur -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/21/2010 2:50:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Registered55

space empires 5 was great with the BMod, but man was it slow,

no multi-threading, the speed of the game killed it for me,

if only SE5 could be multi-threaded, with x3 and x4 CPU's becoming standard now, man SE5 would of been a great game to get into,

but unfortunately I always had to call it a day, 2-6 minutes staring at a "Processing" screen, is not my idea of fun....

on some medium size galaxies with medium amount of AI players game turns could be upto 6-12 minutes waiting for turn processing....................... yeah like that would take off,

SE5 should of been re-written with Multi-threading in mind, but no developer wants or can do it, (same goes to distant worlds aswell)



Exactly! Especially the HORRIBLE interface (where the individual buttons even lagged more than many AAA graphics hog titles today lol), and the HORRIBLE camera, which was locked on the star and you couldnt even pan, only rotate around >_<

I just could never get over those things, i NEVER enjoyed SE5, ever.. I loved the concept, but the fact that they went 3d "just to be 3d", in a poorly executed incompetent way, ruined the game. Look at Distant Worlds or Galciv2, 2d isnt anything bad, its something GOOD! Especially if it means you can have huge games without horrible controls.



martok -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/21/2010 8:15:03 PM)

Personally, my rankings are as follows:

1.) Birth of the Federation
2.) Distant Worlds
3.) Galactic Civilizations 2
4.) Armada 2526
5.) Imperium Galactica 2: Alliances




quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Well, one big difference is that Distant Worlds is real-time, whereas Gal Civ 2 and SE5 are turn-based. I normally prefer turn-based games, but Distant Worlds has made me something of a convert. Right now if I had to pick only one, I'd go with DW. It's a different experience. I agree with Sean that its galaxy feels more "alive" to me. And with everything set to manual, I feel like I have plenty of micromanaging goodness to keep me happy -- but you can set some stuff to auto if you prefer.

I too usually prefer turn-based 4x games, but DW is definitely a notable exception for me as well.

The civilian economy really breathes life into the game, and the automation/suggestion features are a huge boon in running a multi-stellar empire. The AI is also generally good, which -- as someone who nearly always plays games in single-player mode (setting aside that Distant Worlds is solely SP in any case) -- is something I definitely appreciate!




the1sean -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/23/2010 1:03:35 PM)

Well, for the record:

1. Distant Worlds (suggestive helper AI, living economy and galaxy, great enemy AI, Pirates done very well, galaxy feels very old and good story)
2. Master of Orion 2 (almost EVERYTHING was groundbreaking at the time and synthesized well, awesome game!)
3. Galactic Civilizations 2 (great AI, amazing diplomacy, cool galactic wonder and commodity system)
4. Sword of the Stars (wonderful variable tech tree system, real 3d map, and coolest looking battles!)
5. Armada 2526 (unique victory conditions and wormhole system)
6. Imperium Galactica 2 (very cool intergalactic market, a decent stab at interactive planetary surface combat)
(EDIT) #7- Star Wars: Rebellion (cool character/agent system similar to Armageddon Empires, and, well, STAR WARS ships!!!)


Honorable Mention: Master of Orion 1, Space Empires 3 & 4 & 5, Birth of the Federation, GalCiv1, Spaceward Ho! (anyone play that one???)

Distant Worlds has ship design, great AI, and a pretty smooth gameplay system with AI automation and awesome combat. Just needs more of the good things from the other series. Oh, and Distant Worlds barely beat out Master of Orion 2 for first place...



Shark7 -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/23/2010 2:12:28 PM)

If I had to rank my favorites at this point:

1. Distant Worlds
2. MoO Series
3. Imperium Galactica 2
4. Armada 2526



Hertston -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/23/2010 3:05:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheDespot
In addition I find SOTS to be a great game, I sometimes wish more games had such attention to combat mechanics.


Just balance, really. I'm a huge SotS fan, but have always thought of it more as a sci-fi wargame than a 4X as such because of the emphasis both on tactical combat and fleet movement. There's an awful lot of the usual 4X stuff SotS doesn't even attempt to do, and would probably be a poorer game if it did.



TheDespot -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/23/2010 5:21:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean

Well, for the record:

1. Distant Worlds (suggestive helper AI, living economy and galaxy, great enemy AI, Pirates done very well, galaxy feels very old and good story)
2. Master of Orion 2 (almost EVERYTHING was groundbreaking at the time and synthesized well, awesome game!)
3. Galactic Civilizations 2 (great AI, amazing diplomacy, cool galactic wonder and commodity system)
4. Sword of the Stars (wonderful variable tech tree system, real 3d map, and coolest looking battles!)
5. Armada 2526 (unique victory conditions and wormhole system)
6. Imperium Galactica 2 (very cool intergalactic market, a decent stab at interactive planetary surface combat)

Honorable Mention: Master of Orion 1, Space Empires 3 & 4 & 5, Birth of the Federation, GalCiv1, Spaceward Ho! (anyone play that one???)

Distant Worlds has ship design, great AI, and a pretty smooth gameplay system with AI automation and awesome combat. Just needs more of the good things from the other series. Oh, and Distant Worlds barely beat out Master of Orion 2 for first place...


Out of interest what was spaceward Ho?



TheDespot -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/23/2010 5:23:18 PM)

Have any 4x's ever attempted ground combat in a decent way. SEV tried but it was simply god awful.
I must admit I am in two minds when people suggest ground combat for DW as I think ground combat is simply not neccesary as it would have to be on a grand scale.



Deomrve -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/24/2010 2:09:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheDespot

Out of interest what was spaceward Ho?


Spaceward Ho! was a game created by New World Computing back in the early nineties. It would run in Windows 3.0 without sound and run in Win 3.1 with sound, it would not run it in DOS. The game had a cowboy theme and limited planet development and ship design. It's unique feature was limited metal. You had a finite amount of metal in the universe so that meant you had to keep expanding in order to build new ships. Combat was simplistic as well, ships just lined up opposite each other and pounded away. No ground combat, you just blasted the population to bits then re-colonized. It was quite fun at the time, but MOO came out a year or two later and surpassed it.



Brainsucker -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/24/2010 5:01:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheDespot

Have any 4x's ever attempted ground combat in a decent way. SEV tried but it was simply god awful.
I must admit I am in two minds when people suggest ground combat for DW as I think ground combat is simply not neccesary as it would have to be on a grand scale.


Well, I love ground combat for any 4x and think that DW will be great if has some ground combat feature. But of course, don't make it like SV5 where you must enter separate windows to handle the RTS kind of battle just like SV-5 or Imperium Galactica 2

Maybe limit it to Europa Universalis 3 combat engine is more than enough for everyone here.




the1sean -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/24/2010 5:28:44 AM)

Well put Deomrve, thank you!

TheDespot,

I might add that the game included simplistic tech advnances in weapons, shields, and engines (?). Later versions also had cool stuff like "living bio ships" that costed money but no metal (the finite resource). It was actually a lot like Sword of the Stars, but without realtime combat, extensive ship customization, and the supercool tech tree (that I hope DW adopts, btw). In fact, the first time that I loaded up Sword of the Stars I had a major flashback to Spaceward Ho! Deomrve was also very correct when he said that Master of Orion blew Spaceward Ho1 out of the water in complexity and features of all kinds. In fact, i feel that SotS has the same weaknesses as the venerable Spaceward Ho!, namely too much focus on combat and not enough depth in other areas. Other players may see that as one of it's strengths, though [:)]



the1sean -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/24/2010 6:11:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheDespot
Have any 4x's ever attempted ground combat in a decent way. SEV tried but it was simply god awful.
I must admit I am in two minds when people suggest ground combat for DW as I think ground combat is simply not neccesary as it would have to be on a grand scale.


I dont know what space 4X's you have played, but there are a few different methods that have been tried.

Master of Orion 1 and Galactic Civilizations used population as troops. Some people liked it, I did not. It means you wont throw troops away and there is something at stake (hard earned population), but I think that it is both "unrealistic" and also ends up with a decidedly genocidal bent to the combat. I prefer the more "Star Wars" feeling with multiple races coexisting, etc.

Imperium Galactica 2 had realtime ground battles, with customized land units similar in options to custom space units. Space Empires 5 brought this idea back. Both games did a poor job of it IMHO, not enough depth.

Master of Orion 2 ground combat seems similar, but actually isnt. Troop transports werent custom designs, they were static ship types. Planets built and maintained a garrison, with the size and make-up dependent upon population and facilities built, respectively. Players could also bomb planets with conventional weapons or bio weapons, this would have detrimental effects on the target planet, though.

Armada 2526 has realtime ground combat that occurs on the system space battle map simultaneously. This usually just means that the winning fleet blasts the ground troops from orbit (no damage to the locals), and then invades later. Both the space combat and ground combat failed to hold my interest in the long run.

I think that Distant Worlds is more "epic" than most space 4X's, and that a ground combat system that was very much more involved would hurt the game's pacing by slowing it down too much. I would like to see some variation thrown in though, maybe tech advances that improve "troops" and their combat values. However, I actually think that the current system is pretty good and meshes well with the overall game.

If you want to do decent ground combat, I think it should be a turn-based affair similar to RISK/AXIS&ALLIES (for you boardgamers), or Emperor of the Fading Suns (anyone ever play that 4X game?).



Wenla -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/24/2010 9:48:41 AM)

My 2 cents:

- SEV: I got bored quite soon
- GalCiv 2: I got bored after a whileš
- DW: still playing and geting fun time



Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/24/2010 3:17:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

Just balance, really. I'm a huge SotS fan, but have always thought of it more as a sci-fi wargame than a 4X as such because of the emphasis both on tactical combat and fleet movement. There's an awful lot of the usual 4X stuff SotS doesn't even attempt to do, and would probably be a poorer game if it did.


Actually, I play SOTS using automatic combat resolution and it works out as a pretty enjoyable 4X game. I find the small number & very specialized races somewhat limiting, but until my very recent discovery of DW I'd have called it my favorite contemporary interstellar 4X game.



Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/24/2010 3:30:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brainsucker

Maybe limit it to Europa Universalis 3 combat engine is more than enough for everyone here.



An interstellar 4X game based on the Paradox RTS games (EU series, HOI series) is something I've been wanting since the original EU. As I currently envision it...

Still "area movement" but with that not being used to model planetary terrain just make all the "areas" the same size & hex shaped. Each hex works like a sea zone in the paradox historical games. A star system contains the star (just graphics) and 0-whatever planets that work like island provinces in the paradox historical games. Exploration & colonization per EU3, except the presense & spectral type (color) of satars is not concealed prior to exploration of the hex. Movement could alternatively be through interstellar hexes ("sea provinces") like in the Paradox historical games, or just across them (no interaction/combat in interstellar space - number of hexes just determines travel time, with ship speed of course) like MOO/MOO2. Units & combat more like the HOI series, especially the different tactical roles of ship types so that balanbced fleets are required (you have battle line & midsized cruisers & escort type from the start of the game, they just get bigger/better with tech, unlike most interstellar 4X games where you can only build small escort-type ships at start).



Registered55 -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/24/2010 11:07:03 PM)

SE5 is the most advance 4x there is, but considering the long development cycle, and the large series based,


Distant Worlds has great potential, and for it's initial release beats all other games (small development companies) in the past for features and maturity (credit to Microsoft framework must be acknowledged though) however, being a longtime fan of "Space Empires", it will take some more doing from Distant worlds to be as full featured as SE5, but I have high hopes that distant worlds could be as big, assuming that the developers has half the will power as "Aaron Hall" Space empires developer.

as for combat, Starwars Empires at war has done the best, but it took an entire combat engine to be made to pull it off, and of course nearly 35 developers....LOL




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875