RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (Full Version)

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



Message

Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/25/2010 3:51:55 PM)

I've been playing interstellar 4X games since the pre-computer board game era, and have been a fan of the genre all along - so I"ve owned and played most everything.  BTW, a lot of the early computer games in the genre lifted major portions of the mechanics of previous board games wholesale - including the original MOO and the earliest entries in the SE series.  Prior to MOO, the most popular IS4X computer games were essentially computer ports of the most popular board game in the genre, Stellar Conquest. 

MOO started out with the familiar feature set & mechanics from Stellar Conquest, but taking advantage of the computer medium added so much more.  Although SC and its computer clones were true 4X games with all the X's, MOO was the first computer game to really have all the additional features that genre fans now take for granted - race art & capability differentiation, diplomacy (in SC all races were at war from the start), ship design and an expanded tech tree to support it, a tactical game (in SC combat resolution was a dice rolling excercise), ground combat system (in SC once you wacked the missle bases the panet surrendered and you just had to keep a warship in orbit as a garison).  However, it dropped the SC feature of multiple planets per star (0-4).  How ships/fleets moved on the map, the nebula/gas cloud impact on interstellar movement, the ship range concept, the very mathematics of how planet population & economy were modelled - direct copy from SC.  In a lot of ways, I still think MOO was the most fun to play of all the computer IS4X games.  Its principle feature deficiencies IMO were - only one planet per star (fixed in MOO2), use of population as troops (fixed in MOO2), and the strange tactical system where you can only have 5 classes of ship and all ships of the same class must move as a single stack in combat (fixed in MOO2).

As noted, MOO2 fixed the principle feature deficiencies of MOO and for a long time I thought of it as an improvement.  Eventually I realized that it had made a fatal mistake, though, which most later IS4X games followed - modelling planets more or less as the Civ series models cities.  This guarantees unfun micromanagement overload with a big empire.  I gradually came to realize that the simpler planetary economy model of SC/MOO was far superior in freeing me to do the fun stuff without worrying about worker allocation between functions within the colony or managing pollution.  OK, most later games dropped those last two concepts, but they kept the buildings and that still creates constant micromanagement of the planetary build que.

I was a regular on the Dev boards during MOO3 development, but I always feel the thing went south after Alan Emrich left the dev team (probably before that, but Alan's departure marked a clear transition).  I bought the game, but never really got into it.  Probably a good idea, but bad execution.

I pretty much owned & played every other solo turn-based game in the genre - the SE series II through V (never managed to get my hands on I, but II & II were clearly influenced by the board game franchise Starfire - the later still kicking & in its 5th rules edition), The Birth of the Federation, STARS!, The GalCiv series, SOTS, probably other stuff I'm forgetting...

Key features I've learned to look for (or avoid) include...

1)  The less you have to micromanage what goes on within planets, the better.  I like massive empires, but I hate massive micromanagement.  Although I have played a lot of the Civ series, I hate late game but also dislike artificial victory conditions (prefer to conquer the map or die trying).  Accordingly in Civ-type games I often drop a particular game before completing it, because it has gotten too boring to manage my empire long enough to conquesr the rest.  Better to be like MOO where this is not a problem.

2)  I hate population being treated interchangable with troops.  In 1940 the population of Germany did not invade and exterminate the population of France.  German troops invaded and occupied France, forcing the French population to support the German war effort until Allied troops drove them out.  This is how it needs to work in the game.

3)  I dislike intrusive backstories that dictate who my race is.  I don't consider a "plot" about ancient ruins & lost planets & so forth the troublesome sort of backstory.  However, I don't want to be the Star Trek Federation or the Star Wars Galactic Empire or some equally defined but unique to the game entity.  I have my own ideas on that, thank you very much. 

DW gets back to a simple planetary model without buildings, not a reapplication of the old SC system but one equally free from micromanagement.  The other automation features support big empires as well.  The "private economy" thing is something I've wanted to see for years.  The realtime thing is less preferred than turn-based, but as with the Paradox historical games it has been implimented in a way that makes it manageable & enjoyable - pausable, you can look at everything & issue orders while paused, a customizable system of messaging so you don't miss important events that happen "offscreen".  I can see room for improvement, but as of today I'm calling it the reigning champ.



Igard -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/25/2010 4:28:01 PM)

Very informative and historical post, BB.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barnacle Bill

1)  The less you have to micromanage what goes on within planets, the better.  I like massive empires, but I hate massive micromanagement.  Although I have played a lot of the Civ series, I hate late game but also dislike artificial victory conditions (prefer to conquer the map or die trying).  Accordingly in Civ-type games I often drop a particular game before completing it, because it has gotten too boring to manage my empire long enough to conquesr the rest.  Better to be like MOO where this is not a problem.


Same here. Although, I usually reach a point where I declare victory, when it's clear my enemies are almost completely crushed.

quote:



2)  I hate population being treated interchangable with troops.  In 1940 the population of Germany did not invade and exterminate the population of France.  German troops invaded and occupied France, forcing the French population to support the German war effort until Allied troops drove them out.  This is how it needs to work in the game.


I like the way we can 'merge' the conquered races army with our own. However, I'd like to have a choice. When you think about it, aliens that are so very different from us, they could go about things differently. There needs to be more things that differentiate races from each other. Some could merge armies, others could exterminate the natives.

quote:



3)  I dislike intrusive backstories that dictate who my race is.  I don't consider a "plot" about ancient ruins & lost planets & so forth the troublesome sort of backstory.  However, I don't want to be the Star Trek Federation or the Star Wars Galactic Empire or some equally defined but unique to the game entity.  I have my own ideas on that, thank you very much.


The backstory gets in the way of creating a richer history for each race. Having these mystery ancient races playing such a large part takes something away from the races that could be playing out their own story now.

DW is the reigning champ for me also, and I think it will improve even more. I have faith that it will get better yet.



Bozz -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/25/2010 5:41:14 PM)

I learnt english by playing 4x games [:D]

And I'm not joking, these games are always in english, I remembre when I was younger (I'm 21 now) I spent hours playing SE III, MOO2, Ascendancy and understanding nothing [:@]




the1sean -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/26/2010 10:19:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barnacle Bill
DW gets back to a simple planetary model without buildings, not a reapplication of the old SC system but one equally free from micromanagement.  The other automation features support big empires as well.  The "private economy" thing is something I've wanted to see for years.  The realtime thing is less preferred than turn-based, but as with the Paradox historical games it has been implimented in a way that makes it manageable & enjoyable - pausable, you can look at everything & issue orders while paused, a customizable system of messaging so you don't miss important events that happen "offscreen".  I can see room for improvement, but as of today I'm calling it the reigning champ.


I couldnt agree more, very well put. Its nice to see another board gamer on the scene, by th way [sm=00000289.gif]



Shark7 -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/26/2010 2:21:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozz

I learnt english by playing 4x games [:D]

And I'm not joking, these games are always in english, I remembre when I was younger (I'm 21 now) I spent hours playing SE III, MOO2, Ascendancy and understanding nothing [:@]




And here in the US, there are people that basically want all games banned because they believe all games teach is violence.



Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/26/2010 6:15:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozz

I learnt english by playing 4x games [:D]

And I'm not joking, these games are always in english, I remembre when I was younger (I'm 21 now) I spent hours playing SE III, MOO2, Ascendancy and understanding nothing [:@]




You might try the Paradox historical games, of which the EU (Europa Universalis) series is a 4X game covering Columbus through the American Revolution (typically - he latest EU3 with all expansions added covers 1399-1820). They put the language stuff in localization files that let there easily be translations into any language, and if yours is any European language there is at least a chance they support you.



Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/26/2010 6:16:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean
Its nice to see another board gamer on the scene, by th way [sm=00000289.gif]


Kind of gives you the looooong view[;)]



Gertjan -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/26/2010 6:35:48 PM)

@BB nice story about MOO etc.. I'd like to hear your views on later games.



the1sean -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/27/2010 11:07:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barnacle Bill


quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean
Its nice to see another board gamer on the scene, by th way [sm=00000289.gif]


Kind of gives you the looooong view[;)]


Yeah, and it is interesting to see how the PC games influence the board game market as well. for instance, Twilight imperium seems very PC game influnced, and yet it then influenced games like GalCiv...



Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/27/2010 4:13:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean
Yeah, and it is interesting to see how the PC games influence the board game market as well. for instance, Twilight imperium seems very PC game influnced, and yet it then influenced games like GalCiv...


I'm not familiar with Twilight Imperium, but it stands to reason that there would be some overlap in interest between designers of computer & board games of the same genre.



the1sean -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/29/2010 3:09:47 AM)

Twilight Imperium is the modern successor to Stellar Conquest: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12493/twilight-imperium-third-edition



Registered55 -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/31/2010 8:32:59 AM)

still waiting for a game that incorporates territory in space,

it still has not been done yet,

like on a planet, any military force inside someone's else's sphere of territory without permissions is an act of war,

I've always wanted to see this real life element in a space game,

it was this that killed Galactic Civ 2 for me, military ships were everywhere and there was no consequence, it's such an unrealistic concept, to have a foreign military fleet above or near ones solar system, this is an element that should be put into a space game, but as of yet......... it still has not happened,

even in DW, you can take a fleet directly into a other empires territory without consequence....

i would love to play a space game that had PARADOX's territory rule system in place,

it would be such an un-chaotic game even in late stages of a campaign (something that nearly ALL space strategy games suffer from because of numerous ships on screen all over the place).

Space empires dealt with this issue by having "Worm Holes", each system was blockable....
it wasn't perfect, and the AI always had trouble dealing with this system, but it was a significant step forward in easing the micromanagement of the player, and introducing a real-life element into space strategy games.... controllable territory, a concept that other game makers have not embraced fully with the exception too (Sins of the solar empire) although badly executed IMO.... but as of yet no PARADOX territory regulation system has been put into a space strategy game ......

this is a real shame considering how long the concept of territory rights have been around in real life, and how this concept would be a fact of life for any sentience species in the entire universe.

territory borders and boundaries are essential to any empire of any-kind period, wars would occurs all the time without them, our own history has proven that countless of times,

a military force detected close to an empire would be flagged..... treaties would be the main element that control's this system. (paradox games have this down to a tee, but of course land and space are different and a different approach would obviously be needed, aswell as a system that the AI could understand FULLY!!!)

Galactic Civ 2 had sphere of influence, territory sphere would probably work the same way.... the hard part would be the AI.... getting the AI to understand the mechanics involved in this system.

obviously some things have to be sacrifice because of the fact that a game has to be just that 1st... a game,
but paradox did a good job, until war is declared no trespassing of any kind can be done,

surely a similar but far more forgiving system could be done in a space strategy game.



2guncohen -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/31/2010 9:10:29 AM)

To bad this game is not multiplayer. [:)]





Gertjan -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (8/31/2010 7:01:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Registered55

still waiting for a game that incorporates territory in space,

it still has not been done yet,

like on a planet, any military force inside someone's else's sphere of territory without permissions is an act of war,

I've always wanted to see this real life element in a space game,

it was this that killed Galactic Civ 2 for me, military ships were everywhere and there was no consequence, it's such an unrealistic concept, to have a foreign military fleet above or near ones solar system, this is an element that should be put into a space game, but as of yet......... it still has not happened,

even in DW, you can take a fleet directly into a other empires territory without consequence....

i would love to play a space game that had PARADOX's territory rule system in place,

it would be such an un-chaotic game even in late stages of a campaign (something that nearly ALL space strategy games suffer from because of numerous ships on screen all over the place).

Space empires dealt with this issue by having "Worm Holes", each system was blockable....
it wasn't perfect, and the AI always had trouble dealing with this system, but it was a significant step forward in easing the micromanagement of the player, and introducing a real-life element into space strategy games.... controllable territory, a concept that other game makers have not embraced fully with the exception too (Sins of the solar empire) although badly executed IMO.... but as of yet no PARADOX territory regulation system has been put into a space strategy game ......

this is a real shame considering how long the concept of territory rights have been around in real life, and how this concept would be a fact of life for any sentience species in the entire universe.

territory borders and boundaries are essential to any empire of any-kind period, wars would occurs all the time without them, our own history has proven that countless of times,

a military force detected close to an empire would be flagged..... treaties would be the main element that control's this system. (paradox games have this down to a tee, but of course land and space are different and a different approach would obviously be needed, aswell as a system that the AI could understand FULLY!!!)

Galactic Civ 2 had sphere of influence, territory sphere would probably work the same way.... the hard part would be the AI.... getting the AI to understand the mechanics involved in this system.

obviously some things have to be sacrifice because of the fact that a game has to be just that 1st... a game,
but paradox did a good job, until war is declared no trespassing of any kind can be done,

surely a similar but far more forgiving system could be done in a space strategy game.



I fully agree with you! Very good points!



rk0123msp@mindspring -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/1/2010 3:17:26 AM)

I agree with much of what barnacle bill says in the post above. I still have Steller conquest (both versions) on my collector's shelf. Although it seems to me B Bill is fundamentally a macromanager (from the post), I'm in the minority as a micromanager. When I play a game, I actually want to play the game and not just set it on "auto" and let it run itself. Although, it would be interesting if it was possible to choose an AI side and just "watch" it play out and see what kind of strategies the AI uses.

As far as my all time favorite 4X PC games:

1) MOO2 *****
2) DW ****
3) SEIV ***.5
4) Stars! ***
5) Ascendancy ***

Reach for the Stars, Ascendancy, Sword of the Stars, and Galactic Civilizations are honorable mention. Newer games that I bought but haven't played yet: Sins of a Solar Empire and Lost Empire Immortals (both did not install/work on my windows XP system for one reason or another: one caused my mouse pointer to "disappear" the other failed to load a ".net extension" and just crashed). I was unable to get the latter two to work even with tech support. However, I bought a newer system about 8 weeks ago (windows 7), and both these games installed successfully .. I haven't played past the tutorials though, so I can't give an opinion on these games yet (they aren't evaluated as far as the top 5 games above).

SE IV was a great game, but SE V was a serious letdown with its cruddy AI (though I’ve heard a patch has improved the AI), enough so for me to downgrade the game from 4stars to 2stars (on a scale of 1 to 5). Stars! and Ascendancy are both very old games (early 90s and 80s respectively) that I thoroughly enjoyed at that time. Galactic Civ ... it's been so long since I've played it, but there was something I didn't like about the game that I simply don't remember now (I'd rate it a 2.5 at best). This exact same comment goes for Reach for the Stars. Frankly, I have Sword of the Stars also, but I simply can't remember this game .. it might be another game that never worked/installed successfully on my system. Unfortunately, I've experienced this too much in the 2000 decade .. Games that fail right out of the box, they simply don't make games like they used to. As a rule: I'll take a great space game with great AI and crummy graphics any day over a mediocre game with mediocre AI but great graphics .. Stars! is an excellent case in point.

I agree with much of Registerd55 above, but I definitely don't like when space games are limited to "wormhole" type movement. C'mon, this is space, it shouldn't be possible to block star systems off to movement (or defend it & all systems beyond it that are connected “in series” as if at a narrow mountain pass) .. If it wasn’t for this one thing, I'd rate SEIV as a 5star 4x game. It had so many other great things: literally thousands of tech advances, making it almost impossible to research all techs in a game (which I think is VERY kool), also its awesome "small ship design" ... not only do you design carriers but you design the fighters & bombers that the carrier uses!!, this is just too kool & is unique amongst 4x games I played for this feature. I also love the satellites, mines, & minesweepers. If it wasn't for the "wormhole" only movement (which I really hate) I'd rate it higher than DW. One way to have a “border” in a space game would be to use a mechanism similar to that of “culture” in the Civ IV game, where the “culture” borders can even push back national borders and cause cities to revolt. I think this concept would work very well in a space map like DW, those far-flung outpost would eventually be “absorbed” by a neighboring AI through cultural “revolt”. This probably sounds good in theory, but in practice it tends to make military expansion more difficult (as it did in Civ IV) as newly-captured cities tend to revolt.

Right now, DW has the best combination of things that I like most in 4x games: huge galaxies, virtually unlimited fleet size (limited only by finances), a kool non-wormhole star system design (gotta love the moons & orbiting planets), variety of space debris (asteroids, planets, neutron stars, black holes, white dwarves, supernova, kaltors etc), good mid-sized research tree, diplomacy & spies, and plenty of ship design options. I love the concept of pirates in this game .. too Kool. The things that I don't really like about DW: clunky manual/auto ship interaction (I like to have more control as a micromanager), overpowered "rare" resources .. you basically win once you find one (if you get it early enough); those world destroyer ships can be a game decider if you find one early enough. This past game I've had the AI make some ridiculous deals in my favor: one AI gave me 12xx warp engine for something incredibly piddling in return (this is something that’s beyond my most advanced engine in my tech tree .. why on earth would they trade such a huge advantage!!), I also had another AI trade me (or sell me) an extremely high level of shields (tallassos 7 I think it was). These type deals the AI should not make unless as a last resort (say they're about to lose in a war and the "gift" is in trade for peace). Other than these things, the AI difficulty is very reasonable, and better than most typical "second millenium" 4x space games which are typically massively overworked in graphics and massively underworked in AI .. and, in general, quality of overall game design in terms of functionality. It's hard to remember, but there was actually a time games were made right the first time and the concept of "patches" didn't exist. Now it's like this: I have no expectation that a new PC game will even work much less work without a patch or update. This is not quality to me. DW has had some updates, but it’s definitely not at the bottom as far as “second millennium” quality goes. It actually worked right out of the box the first time, that’s a big plus to me right there. Anyway, I’d rank DW as the second best all-time 4x game based on the 4x games I’ve played: a strong 4 out of 5 stars.

There used to be a time I’d stay up all night playing a new game that I really liked & completely lost track of time in absorption. The last time I can remember doing this was with MOO2, hence it’ll always be a one-of-a-kind game for me (Kind of like “The Godfather” as far as movies go). I’m an old geezer now: when it gets late, I go to sleep. No “second millennium” game has overpowered this, though I suspect it’s more a function of age than anything else. MOO3 was the greatest PC game letdown I've ever experienced in my life, I'll leave MOO3 commentary on that note. Personally, I don’t think modern designers care about good AI, they mainly just want the game to be MMPOG-able (or whatever the acronym is). I already know that I’m not going to win against a bunch of hackers, so I’m not interested in massive multi-man online play.



Wenla -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/1/2010 2:38:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rk0123msp@mindspring

As far as my all time favorite 4X PC games:

1) MOO2 *****
2) DW ****
3) SEIV ***.5
4) Stars! ***
5) Ascendancy ***



Aah, Ascendancy, my first (PC) space game...



Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/1/2010 6:10:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean

Twilight Imperium is the modern successor to Stellar Conquest: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12493/twilight-imperium-third-edition




It sounds interesting, but not particularly related to Stellar Conquest.



Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/1/2010 6:24:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Registered55

still waiting for a game that incorporates territory in space,



I agree. In my ideal game, you'd get a claim on a system by exploring it before anybody else with whom you are in contact, you can't claim a system already claimed by somebody else with whom you are in contact except while at war with them, you can't make peace without resolving all conflicting claims as part of the peace deal, and you can't colonize a system without a claim on it. When you make first contact, there would be a special negociation to resolve conflicting claims (or just go to war).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Registered55

i would love to play a space game that had PARADOX's territory rule system in place,




Not sure that gets it, though. The analogy to Paradox games is land province = planet, sea province = anyplace else besides the surface of a planet. You can park a fleet off somebody's coast in peacetime all you want. Exploration doesn't give you any sort of claim to what you find, either - the only thing that blocks colonization is your own colony, although you can incite natives if there are any and often eliminate tresspassing foriegn colonies that way.



Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/1/2010 6:33:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rk0123msp@mindspring

I agree with much of what barnacle bill says in the post above. I still have Steller conquest (both versions) on my collector's shelf. Although it seems to me B Bill is fundamentally a macromanager (from the post), I'm in the minority as a micromanager. When I play a game, I actually want to play the game and not just set it on "auto" and let it run itself.


Depends on what it is we're micromanaging. For example, a lot of people wouldn't like a 4X game with a tactical module in which combat between fleets was turn-based and resolved with a "Star Fleet Battles" type impulse/proportional movement system (not SFB itself, in which managing more than a couple ships is a pain - thinking more like Starfire played using the impulse chart from SFB). That's a sort of micromanagement I get into. However, once I have more than a handfull of colonies in the empire I can do w/o fiddling with every planet every turn to choose what building to build next and optimize the split in what the population is doing to maximize production/research while preventing starvation & polution (MOO2).



rk0123msp@mindspring -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/1/2010 7:58:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barnacle Bill


quote:

ORIGINAL: rk0123msp@mindspring

I agree with much of what barnacle bill says in the post above. I still have Steller conquest (both versions) on my collector's shelf. Although it seems to me B Bill is fundamentally a macromanager (from the post), I'm in the minority as a micromanager. When I play a game, I actually want to play the game and not just set it on "auto" and let it run itself.


Depends on what it is we're micromanaging. For example, a lot of people wouldn't like a 4X game with a tactical module in which combat between fleets was turn-based and resolved with a "Star Fleet Battles" type impulse/proportional movement system (not SFB itself, in which managing more than a couple ships is a pain - thinking more like Starfire played using the impulse chart from SFB). That's a sort of micromanagement I get into. However, once I have more than a handfull of colonies in the empire I can do w/o fiddling with every planet every turn to choose what building to build next and optimize the split in what the population is doing to maximize production/research while preventing starvation & polution (MOO2).




MOO2 micromanagement worked well since even on the largest map there were only 70 or 80 stars. DW with 1400 stars on a large map would make such a level of micromanagement impossible; there's not enough time in the day. What would be kool is a Dominions type control to battles: players position their fleets, even individual ships as you want in tactical formations pre-battle, then give orders to each group from a drop down list: frontal assault, attack rear, use missilies from distance, launch fighters & remain out of range, close range and use beam weapons, cover marine invasion, orbital bombardment, flee if outnumbered more than x-to-1, etc. Then tailor individual ship designs to what your tactical approach is. Battles for this fleer or group of fleets are fought automatically in real-time as to this template (as in the game Dominions). Of course, there could been an auto "default" setting for those who don't care about fighting their battles and prefer macromanagment only.



Gertjan -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/1/2010 8:37:44 PM)

@rk, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Interesting read, but kind of sad as well. I think that DW and Sins of a solar empire have great innovation. In additon, a Galciv3 will be great when it finally comes.



tkobo -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/2/2010 2:17:43 AM)

Emperor of the Fading Suns had ground combat that made you land armies,maneuver them,and capture cites and resource centers til you controlled the whole world (large hex based map).Even rebel units showed up on the map as actual units that would attack and run and hide when over-matched.

Best handling of ground combat in a 4x yet.



Registered55 -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/2/2010 6:39:21 AM)

without borders, then I would park 15 fleets in strategic systems, above planets, and when I have all my pieces above every system that the opposing empire consider extremely valuable, then I would declare war, attack all those systems, and then demand a surrender, as I have just successfully taken at least 20 of the planets....nice


Military fleets should not be allowed in other empires sphere of territory for this reason, one could park there fleets in strategic positions, wait, then declare war and attack in one swift move.

Territory and borders would stop this from happening, which is why nearly all sci-fi programs have incorporated this concept,

I for one would be very uncomfortable if an entire fleet of military ships from an opposing faction was in this system....

I would be very uncomfortable if Russia parked an entire fleet of ships just outside United kingdoms borders at sea.... wouldn't you?

Borders and territory does have a way of keeping peace of mind for a countries or empires people.

This hole discussion is academic, it's never been done yet, and I doubt very much that DW will incorporate this extremely complex system (in terms of programming, territory is very complex to program)

oh, and for parking a fleet outside someone's border would have profound consequences (depending on what level of offensive power the fleet in question had) but regardless of the military aspect,
If permission has not been granted, then a country would have no option but to take it as an "Act of War", any aggressive action such as parking a fleet outside countries borders can only be interpreted in one way, and must be answered to with actions in kind. (Wars have started this way many times in earth's history, space would be no different) territory disputes will always be a fact of life, whether on planets or in space.

military ships would be watched, military fleets (armada's) would be destroyed if they enter an empires sphere of control, an empire would not take the chance of billions of lives on the whim that the opposing fleet may or may not attack, a pre-emptive strike has shown to cripple countries, an empire in space would not dare take that chance.

In the game it could be done however that if that fleet of ships are destroyed in foreign territory, then that does not mean war should automatically be declared, the fleet of ships should not have been in foreign territory, and the attacking empire had full diplomatic right in destroying what could have been a pre-emptive strike force....

A bit like a Ceases belli thingy, I don’t know, I am getting way to deep into this....sorry!!! (It’s a very passionate subject for me, as you probably can tell)



J HG T -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/2/2010 7:15:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Registered55


Military fleets should not be allowed in other empires sphere of territory for this reason, one could park there fleets in strategic positions, wait, then declare war and attack in one swift move.

Territory and borders would stop this from happening, which is why nearly all sci-fi programs have incorporated this concept,

I for one would be very uncomfortable if an entire fleet of military ships from an opposing faction was in this system....

I would be very uncomfortable if Russia parked an entire fleet of ships just outside United kingdoms borders at sea.... wouldn't you?

Borders and territory does have a way of keeping peace of mind for a countries or empires people.




Ownership of territory gets very shady when you move to outer space. You can in some sense own a system, or planets and area around them. But owning empty deep space that you can't even monitor or control effectively, no matter how advanced the technology may be, is just arrogant and stupid. I think it should be like this and I feel it works well in DW. Your systems are your territory, not the empty space between them. The deep space is practically no-mans land where fleets can move freely. I think this a quite "realistic" way to express the territories in space. It really forces you to think differently from the familiar land based warfare and ownership. And remember "He who defends everything defends nothing". This is especially true in DW where you just can't have ships defending every single planet in your empire.



Registered55 -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/2/2010 10:53:21 AM)

a border is nothing more than a empire who says what that border entails,

DW works on a 2D plane, which simplifies borders significantly,

2 empires that come together on a thin border line would under treaties stipulate what can be done in btween that very narrow space.

both empires would have to acknowledge that without a border, territory disputes will lead to WAR,

"is just arrogant and stupid" very narrow-minded.....

"Unwise, un-practical, and maybe to costly perhaps"

but that's what listening posts would be for, a worth while expense if it diverts a costly war from happening,

In DW it could be possible like i said before, a very simple version of territory system,

like said before, no military ships of anykind (ship with a specific number of weapons, or perhaps hull size) is allowed in a system that is occupied by another empire, unless WAR is declared first....

it's simple, and would work quite well, doesn't have a border system in place, but does stop empires military ships from going to places where they shouldn't be allowed, and would also stop pre-emptive attack's from happening,
the system would need to forgiving, i did say this in my 1st post i believe, nothing is ever absolute.






J HG T -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/2/2010 11:52:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Registered55


"is just arrogant and stupid" very narrow-minded.....

"Unwise, un-practical, and maybe to costly perhaps"





I agree with you on that. My skill in writing english is not the best of kind. So thanks for correction.
To be honest, I'm quite fine with DWs current "territory" system. It's not perfect, but nothing in the whole Universe is! The main point of my argument is still the fact that space is friggin' big place. Our current earthly concept of ownership of land just don't bend to astronomical proportions.

Anyway, try to enjoy the game. The more people nitpick things like these the more they forget that the game is excellent even with its small flaws. I've seen ridiculous amount of forum-wars nowadays over small things. Last case was the rather heated situation with the ME2. The game was quite different from ME1 and that was all some freaks needed to call it abomination. Seriously, people these days should really use some common sense and be happy with what they have. Things could be far worse.

EDIT: Also we are mildly off-topic. Sorry about this.



rk0123msp@mindspring -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/2/2010 3:26:44 PM)

The concept of laying "claim" to a system just for passing an exploration ship through seems ridiculous to me. If I want to colonize an unocupied system, hell even an unoccupied planet in a system that otherwise has planets owned by others, just go for it. It doesn't stop me, it shoulden't stop the AI either. In fact, in the game I'm playing there are plenty of systems owned my multiple AI.

It's like that star trek episode with the Gorn: the federation built a colony on a system that was "claimed" by the Gorn, and the Gorn flattened it (regardless if the federation knew it was claimed or not). Kirk ended up doing the hand-to-hand combat thing with the bamboo bazooka.

The way I see it is: if you want to colonize a planet, colonize it. If you want to "claim" a system without taking it, build defense bases there or park a fleet and defend it. In fact, I built a defense base on the planet with the zentabia fluid because I didn't want anyone else to have it (I can't get a colony ship there yet as it's volcanic or something). If it was occupied, I'd invade immediately no matter who owned it.

Of course, the AI should be capable of doing all the above in entirety. AI should also place a distinct priority on "rare" luxury planets, such as conquest & building significant defences there: multiple defense bases etc, make it very difficult for the human player to take. I have noticed in prior games the Ai will attack "rare" luxury planets, planting at least one good defence base, as well as a spaceport (eventually) is well worth it.

Also, the problem with "parking" a large fleet in orbit around an alien system, that presumably the player has no planets in, is that the fleet just ends up using fuel. A much better approach is position multiple fleets for multiple simultaneous attacks from nearby planets. I typically attack 3 to 5 planets at once, making sure there's enough invasion troops in each attack. I've noticed in the game I'm playing now that I have at least one system with the AI having a large fleet (12+ ships), but it was attacking a 3rd AI, basically they were having a battle in one of my systems over a planet. I've never been able to launch a 15 system silmultanous attack yet, since I havent been able to build a large enough fleet yet, right now 5 system attack is about my limit. This is mainly due to finances though. I recently launched the largest attack I ever have so far in DW, a 30 ship attack against a home system, I think it was sluken. They had a "large" starbase and 2 or 3 defense bases. It was unbelievable. I lost 25 ships, but was somehow able to take the colony via troop attack, at which point the heavily damaged starbase & one defense base that was left, "reverted" to my control. My opinion is that starbase & base ownership should be based on the original creator, seemed kind of cheesy that I was able to take the base by taking the planet .. otherwise I would've lost for sure, that was one well-defended planet !!

I don't really have a problem with AI fleets in my system, they seem to be loathe to attack you if you're very strong. I have the largest military rating right now and none of the other AIs have declared war on me except one who was goaded to by one of the other AIs I was at war with. I actually offered peace to this AI that declared war (because my fleets were positioned against the other AI), and they went for peace. This AI could easily have made major gains against me, even had a good chance of taking a significant portion of my empire since my fleets were out of position, but did nothing and just made peace. Basically I was lucky, but the AI should've taken at least 3 or 4 colonies from me right away & forced peace on me at a high price, not just a "sure why not" handshake. My analysis is that the AI was programmed not to attack on the basis of a comparison of military rating and not fleet disposition, althoug in this case the AI military rating should've been combined with the "ally" military rating before comparison.

Despite everything I just said above, I don't have a problem with a "cultural" type border like a mentioned in my other post (similar to civ IV). The only problem I have with this is that it makes military conquest difficult as planets (cities in civ iv) tend to revolt more than I'd like.


quote:

ORIGINAL: J HG T

To be honest, I'm quite fine with DWs current "territory" system. It's not perfect, but nothing in the whole Universe is! The main point of my argument is still the fact that space is friggin' big place. Our current earthly concept of ownership of land just don't bend to astronomical proportions.




Amen to that.

I think you meant MOO2 (instead of ME2) vs MOO3 (not ME1). MOO3 was a completely different (a 100% redesigned game) from MOO2 (MOO1 was good, M002 was the best 5star, MOO3 was an F-). I can perfectly understand the heated debates on that topic, though I'm not going to add anything since I've already commented on this extensively in other forums. I think DW is a worthy successor to MOO2.



J HG T -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/2/2010 4:11:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rk0123msp@mindspring


Despite everything I just said above, I don't have a problem with a "cultural" type border like a mentioned in my other post (similar to civ IV). The only problem I have with this is that it makes military conquest difficult as planets (cities in civ iv) tend to revolt more than I'd like.


quote:

ORIGINAL: J HG T

To be honest, I'm quite fine with DWs current "territory" system. It's not perfect, but nothing in the whole Universe is! The main point of my argument is still the fact that space is friggin' big place. Our current earthly concept of ownership of land just don't bend to astronomical proportions.




Amen to that.

I think you meant MOO2 (instead of ME2) vs MOO3 (not ME1). MOO3 was a completely different (a 100% redesigned game) from MOO2 (MOO1 was good, M002 was the best 5star, MOO3 was an F-). I can perfectly understand the heated debates on that topic, though I'm not going to add anything since I've already commented on this extensively in other forums. I think DW is a worthy successor to MOO2.


The cultural sphere for every empire would be fine with me and give new means for more peaceful empires. Just like in Civ and GalCiv 2.

Sorry for shady description. I meant differences between Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2. But now that you mentioned MOO1 and MOO2, the situation is pretty much similar. To be honest, same sitution repeats every time a great game gets a great successor. MOO1 and 2, ME1 and 2, Space Rangers 1 and 2, Halo 1, 2 and 3. Heck, the list goes on and on. Everytime, no matter how great the second installment may be, some stay fanatically loyal to first part for whatever reasons. Human nature is strange. Go figure.





Gertjan -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/2/2010 7:19:11 PM)

In Galciv2 you would get warnings if you parked your fleet within or close to enemy borders.



Barnacle Bill -> RE: GalCiv2 vs SEV vs Distant Worlds. (9/2/2010 9:16:43 PM)

My first mention of "parking" a fleet was in reference to the mechanics of Paradox games (which had been invoked as a model to be reapplied).  In the Paradox games, there is neither a rules barrier or a diplomatic down-side to parking a fleet in a sea province next to somebody else's land province - not even if the sea province contains one or more island provinces all owned by the other nation (which is a pretty good analogy for planets in a star system for a space 4X game).  Depending on exactly which Paradox game you are talking about and some in-game factors, there may or may not be an attritition issue.  However, I wasn't referring to real life.

IRL, international law recognizes coastal zones as territory into which foreign military vessels may not intrude without permission.  However, these are very limited - 12 miles from the low tide coastline, and even then "innocent passage" is allowed within the 12mi limit even for foriegn milirary vessels.  Note that the main battery of an Iowa class battleship has a range of 24 miles [;)]  Note that even the 5" gun on contemporary USN destroyers have a range of 13 miles.  Naval powers frequently hold "freedom of navigation" excercises when some government attempts to assert more control than international law allows (e.g. the 1981 Gulf of Sidra incident in which Libya's attempt to claim more was successfully challenged by the US Navy).  Naval powers very often do park major units (e.g. carrier battlegroups) in international waters off somebody else's coast to send a signal.

As to territorial claims, there are indeed systems in real-life international law to recognize these.  In many cases historically (through about 1900, maybe later re Antarctica) the basis for international recognition of claims has been who explored it first.  Of course, these are systems the international community has evolved to minimize armed conflict, and when they don't work the issue gets settled "by other means".  However, you can't just move in because the claimant hasn't colonized it yet himself and be considered the victim of an act of war if they forcably eject you. 

Nor is it based around "cultural radius" from some bigger settlement a la the more recent Civ games.  For example, the portion of the US and Canada that Joel Garreau's The Nine Nations of North America called "The Empty Quarter" is indeed pretty empty, but nevertheless the Yanks & Canucks have to confine their city building to their respective sides of the border and the location of the border has nothing to do with the relative cultural influence of Chicago and Winnipeg.  It was established diplomatically at a time when there was pretty much nobody there except Indians and fur traders (none of whom were consulted by the diplomats). Historically, when the diplomats sit down to draw the borders of unsettled (by "civilized" people) areas, who explored what when has usually carried a lot of weight. In the case of the US-Canadian border, the US inherited claims from French & Spanish exporation by virtue of the Louisiana Purchase. However, for another example Belgium got the Congo because of Stanley's explorations - not because they could militarily eject the British & French & Germans, and certainly not because Brussels excerted a stronger cultural influence over central Africa than London & Paris & Berlin.

Having it work that way in a 4X game, between empires that are enjoying normal diplomatic relations, seems pretty reasonable.  It also seems pretty reasonable to have means of diplomatically resolving conflicting claims (inevitably arising from exploration before first contact), as well as diplomatic & AI recognition of a casus belli for limited war if diplomacy can't resolve the conflict.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.625