Review @ Out of Eight

[JaguarUSF]

A review of Armada 2526 has been posted at Out of Eight PC Game Reviews:
http://www.outofeight.info/2009/12/arma ... eview.html
Enjoy!

[ASHBERY76]

Sins of the Solar empire is not a 4X game in my book,but that is another topic.

[Plodder]

Hmm, fair (I'd give it least a 6 however as this game has me addicted like no other 4x) but I'm wondering how long you played this game as there are a couple of errors in this review:

Movement in the game is restricted to between stars only

That's only true until you research the proper tech.

you have to actually issue a move order before you see which ships are at a particular star.

Wrong. you can either double-click on the a fleet's entry in the fleets list or you can double-click on a colony and click on the fleet tab.

[Iceman]

Hehe, yep, his reviews aren't very accurate.
Good to know that this is an oversaturated genre though  [;)]

[gijas17]

Is there going to be anymore reviews for this game?

[Plodder]

There's one excellent user review here.

[Wade1000]

ORIGINAL: The Plodder

Hmm, fair (I'd give it least a 6 however as this game has me addicted like no other 4x) but I'm wondering how long you played this game as there are a couple of errors in this review:

Movement in the game is restricted to between stars only

That's only true until you research the proper tech.

you have to actually issue a move order before you see which ships are at a particular star.

Wrong. you can either double-click on the a fleet's entry in the fleets list or you can double-click on a colony and click on the fleet tab.

The reviewer does state "initially" in the movement is resticted to between stars regard; though, he could have elaborated. The reviewer also states that: "Custom games can support up to twelve players and you can set the game length, difficulty level, and map attributes." Armada 2526 can support up to 104 players with 12 RACES to choose.

The review seems to be poorly done or the reviewer is biased.

[Zakhal]

The only review I can give is that I had more fun playing armada than galvic or solar empire and I have played them all 4x since the early 90s. 

EDIT:

Thats more fun than I EVER had with galciv (its somwhat boring) and I bought all the expansions. Solar empire is not real 4x. Does not compare.

[ShotmanMaslo]

The reviews are overall objective in my opinion. They pointed out the downsides which developers should work to improve in future patches/additions, mainly:
-bland real-time combat
-uninspired research
-no online multiplayer
-managing your colonies can be quite difficult (I will add bureucracy, economy, and population issues here..)
-graphics
-the mini-map is a joke
-poor star system/planets diversity

..and also found the sweet spots. [:)]

[Erik Rutins]

The tactical combat is not the heart of Armada, but based on what I read, I wonder if he noticed that there are other camera views than top down? Generally speaking, I'm a fan of his reviews. In this case, I'm surprised he didn't rate it a point or two higher, as I feel the current score is too low, but I appreciate that he took the time to review the game.

[killroyishere]

Oh a 5 out of 8 he really hit the bottom end hard.

The Not So Good: Offers no drastic gameplay innovation, bland real-time combat, uninspired research, generic diplomatic options, no online multiplayer, brief tutorial
What say you? An introductory 4X space strategy game that lacks the “hook” of more robust offerings: 5/8

Many players have been saying it wasn't anything really new and he just confirmed it is all.

[Hertston]

Not one of James' best.  In particular the points he acknowledges as 'good' are so essential, and so frequently missing in 4X games, they did not receive sufficient credit.  On the flipside, while I agree the tactical combat is less than stellar it is better than that in any contemporary 4X (SoaSE is not one, as has been said) other than SotS, which has a deliberate emphasis on that as opposed to other things.   It's also worthy of note, IMHO, but that both Galciv 2 and SotS have several years of post-release development and a couple of meaty expansions apiece as well.  Armada is no more 'introductory' than either of those games in vanilla form - and I've played both since their original release.   

[Tom_Holsinger]

It's really unfair of a review to compare a just-released 4x game to those which have been out some time given that post-release development has become so important.  This is particularly true of games where player mods are an intentional part of post-release development.  The very limited spreadsheet mods offered last week by Grandpoobah and Aroddo show how dramatic an effect those can have.
 
What should be deemed important in a review of Armada 2526 are its particular presentation of the 4x concept and the game system's succcess in realizing it, the game's playability and pacing, the useabilty of its interface, graphics & music (eye & ear candy), how the tactical combat system works and its probable limitations, that it lacks multiplayer capability, and the game's probable immediate appeal and its growth potential.
 
As an example, what is most noteworthy about Armada's tactical combat system is it will likely not scale up well as the sizes of the fleets involved go up, and they will go up as there is no hard-coded limit on the number of ships which can participate in a given battle.  What's fun with 40 ships on a side will be cumbersome with 100 ships on a side, and probably impossible to manage with 200.  While the scale of the game is physically limited only by hardware, the tactical combat system will likely rule out playing in really large galaxies.
 
That is a pretty good indication of the designer's intent that the game emphasize breadth over depth (and note that I am not being critical of the tactical combat system. rather I am showing that it is part of an integrated whole).  Armada is not epic in scope, and definitely is not open-ended.  It is intended first and foremost to be playable and quick, with each game having a conclusion, and to offer as wide a breadth of experience as possible.  The exceptionally varied victory conditions are intended to, and probably will, get most players out of the space 4x rut of conquering everything in sight while showing them how much unexected fun they can have in the process.
 
I.e., Armada 2526 is not a "normal" turn-based space 4 game.  It tries to expand, and possibly to transcend, the genre.  The designer's intent comes through clearly, and the game system seems to effectively present it.  Plus is works as a game.  It really is possible to play a complete game in ten hours or less.  There are surprisingly few bugs, and most crashes seem to be due to failure to update Net Frame.
 
And it is a mistake to think of Armada 2526 as a standalone, finished, product.  It has just begun its growth and expansion curve, and its foundation seems solid.
 
What I appreciated the Out of Eight review for was that it pointed me to Gratuitous Space Battles.  Ya gotta love a pure space combat game with TWO Kobayashi Maru scenarios.  "Gratuitous Space Battles aims to bring the over-the-top explodiness back into space games."
 
 
 

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Tom_Holsinger

What I appreciated the Out of Eight review for was that it pointed me to Gratuitous Space Battles.  Ya gotta love a pure space combat game with TWO Kobayashi Maru scenarios.  "Gratuitous Space Battles aims to bring the over-the-top explodiness back into space games."

And fails miserably IMHO. Just goes to show that opinion and 'tilt' are as important as gameplay ideas, and presentation! I liked the concept of GSB, and it just sounded like the sort of game I really ought to enjoy enormously. I bought it and discovered to my dismay that what the game does best is act as a cure for insomnia. Quite why anyone would even think of playing GSB when AI War exists is beyond my comprehension. Still, my opinion on GSB seems to be in the minority. [&:]

[Tom_Holsinger]

I hope you are incorrect about GSB, because my wife got it for me for Christmas after I showed her its hilarious web page.

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Tom_Holsinger

What I appreciated the Out of Eight review for was that it pointed me to Gratuitous Space Battles.  Ya gotta love a pure space combat game with TWO Kobayashi Maru scenarios.  "Gratuitous Space Battles aims to bring the over-the-top explodiness back into space games."

And fails miserably IMHO. Just goes to show that opinion and 'tilt' are as important as gameplay ideas, and presentation! I liked the concept of GSB, and it just sounded like the sort of game I really ought to enjoy enormously. I bought it and discovered to my dismay that what the game does best is act as a cure for insomnia. Quite why anyone would even think of playing GSB when AI War exists is beyond my comprehension. Still, my opinion on GSB seems to be in the minority. [&:]

[Terl]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Tom_Holsinger

What I appreciated the Out of Eight review for was that it pointed me to Gratuitous Space Battles.  Ya gotta love a pure space combat game with TWO Kobayashi Maru scenarios.  "Gratuitous Space Battles aims to bring the over-the-top explodiness back into space games."

And fails miserably IMHO. Just goes to show that opinion and 'tilt' are as important as gameplay ideas, and presentation! I liked the concept of GSB, and it just sounded like the sort of game I really ought to enjoy enormously. I bought it and discovered to my dismay that what the game does best is act as a cure for insomnia. Quite why anyone would even think of playing GSB when AI War exists is beyond my comprehension. Still, my opinion on GSB seems to be in the minority. [&:]

I own both GSB and AI war. I think AI War is the better of the two. Both are enjoyable and have their own niche but I do play AI War more.

[Grotius]

Well, I'm very glad I bought "Armada 2526." I haven't been this hooked on a 4X game in quite some time. The single most interesting feature, for me, is that each race has its own victory conditions. I can think of boardgames that use that mechanic ("Chaos of the Old World", for example), but off the top of my head, I can't think of a computer 4X game that does, other than Armada. Also, much as I enjoy GalCiv2, I'm not really missing designing my own ships. I also like Armada's rather demanding economic model (even as I acknowledge it has flaws). It means that I have to make hard choices about what to build where. I'm finding I actually pause to think about interesting strategic decisions in this game. I like the emphasis on strategic decisions, the relatively quick gameplay, the customizability.

I do agree with many of the suggestions for improvement that I've read here. Tactical battles are OK, but so far they pale in comparison to those in the Total War series. Maybe they'll get more interesting? And yeah, the humans seem to have it tough; nothing that can't be tweaked with the game's tools, though. I haven't played enough to have definitive opinions about diplomacy, but it doesn't seem as robust as in, say, GalCiv 2 or Civ 4. I do wish the tech tree were bigger, longer, or otherwise more interesting. It's OK as is; at least it's not overwhelming.

So is it possible for players to create (and upload) scenarios for this game? I enjoy random maps, but it's also nice to explore a galaxy that's been planned in advance.

[Tom_Holsinger]

Grotius,
 
That's why IMO a review of this game should focus on what Bob Smith was trying to do and how well he succeeded at it.  I understood the former before the game was released.  It is disappointing to see reviews saying that the game isn't that much different.  Bob obviously tried to make it different.  That is the game's fundamental rationale.  IMO he shorted the traditonal stuff too much, which is some of the explanation for the reviews, but I have to wonder about the judgment of those who say Armada is just more of the same when it so obviously isn't.
 
There is a Map & Scenario Creator which allows for two options - creation of a completely planned galaxy, aka plant each bloody star and dust cloud square one by one kind of thing, and creation of a random galaxy which can then be tweaked to add empires, colonies, victory conditions, etc.  You then use the spreadsheets generated that way as the basis for a scenario like the Twelve Races scenario.  IMO there is a need for a means of generating map & related spreadsheets from a saved game for editing, aka tweaking, by the Map & Scenario creator.

[Grotius]

Tom,

Thanks for the reply. I agree, what I like about Armada is that it *isn't* more of the same. The differing victory conditions really set it apart.

I didn't realize there was a Map & Scenario Editor; I did read/skim the manual, but I must've skipped over that bit. I hope people make us some custom scenarios! I see lots of mods in the Mods/Scenarios section of this forum, but no new scenarios so far. Or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place?

[Tom_Holsinger]

The Map Creator didn't seem user friendly when I glanced at it, plus the inability to export existing maps from custom scenarios is a major, major deterrent to learning how to use it. I suspect people won't start exploring the Map Creator until, at the earliest, school Christmas vacations start.

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Tom,

Thanks for the reply. I agree, what I like about Armada is that it *isn't* more of the same. The differing victory conditions really set it apart.

I didn't realize there was a Map & Scenario Editor; I did read/skim the manual, but I must've skipped over that bit. I hope people make us some custom scenarios! I see lots of mods in the Mods/Scenarios section of this forum, but no new scenarios so far. Or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place?