distant worlds

[leftydad]

What's the difference between this game and DISTANT WORLDS?

[lordxorn]

Armada is Turn Based, and more similar to Total War in space because one of the main devs I think Bob Smith is from on of the Total War games.

So a cross between Gal Civ and a Total War game.

[leftydad]

Thanks for the info.
 
I don't have either game and am trying to figure out which to purchase first.  Would you say DISTANT WORLDS is more like Galactic Civ.? 

[Rosseau]

Armada is a bit simpler and more like GalCiv (with no ship design), but I'd buy DW with the expansion in a minute. I'm playing the first of the galcivII expansions right now, and it's boring the hell out of me.

[lordxorn]

Yeah Gal Civ was good for it's time, and also a top selling 4x game. However the research is too generic like Laser I, then Laser II, etc.

The ship customization was cool because you could technically strap on enough parts to make things like Star DEstroyers, however it had no effect on the ship design besides looks.

DW is the best spiritual successor to MOO2 but it is real time.

[Wolfe1759]

From a previous post almost a year ago here tm.asp?m=2415764&mpage=1&key=&#2471519



Bought Armada last week (already own DW and SOTS, Sins, GC2) and I must admit to being pleasantly surprised.

Based on playing the tutorial scenario through a few times to turn 100+ (which in itself is a recommendation) my initial impressions would be that it doesn't do anything ground breaking for the genre but what it does it does well and in a very accessible format.

In comparison to DW (admittedly based on roughly equal play of the two games even though I've had DW since it came out)

Gameplay - Even though I've probably still got a lot to learn I already feel comfortable with Armada so that I'm thinking more about planning and strategy rather than how to actually do things in the game system. With DW I really still don't know what I am doing in any detail at a unit control / tactical level - maybe there are just too many options. This may be down to the fact that Armada is on more familiar territory in regards to the other games in the genre whereas DW is trying something more ambitious.

Graphics - pretty similar, neither as good as Sins but good enough

Sound - again pretty similar, I generally play with music off in both games and would probably only notice the sound if it was irritating.

Battle Comparisons - can't be much help here as although Armada has pauseable real-time tactical combat I almost always auto resolve as at this stage in learning the game (and possibly in the future as well) I'm more interested in playing the strategic elements of the game.

Overall for a fun more casual game Armada is a good fit, DW has however got the potential to be a very good game if you are can put time into the learning curve.

In general I would compare very loosely (in Matrix terms) Armada to Commander Europe at War or Uncommon Valor whereas I would compare DW to Forge of Freedom and possibly War in the Pacific.

Again the above is very much initial impressions.





I've now added the expansions to both of the games and overall the above still pretty much remains true for me.

I feel that I should play more of DW because it should be the better game but Armada seems to have hit the sweet spot for me and 9 times out of 10 I'll tend to click the Armada icon rather than the DW one.

If you are likely to play a few hours a week on a game then Armada is probably a better choice, if you are likely to play a few hours a day then you may get more out of DW.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

If you are likely to play a few hours a week on a game then Armada is probably a better choice, if you are likely to play a few hours a day then you may get more out of DW.

Good advice. DW is the better game IMHO, but Armada plays quicker and doesn't require the same time investment to get to grips with what's going on. Reviews of Armada on release were a little unkind, not least by constant comparisons to Galciv 2 - AFTER it had received several years post release development and a couple of hefty expansions. Which considering the disastrous early release of Elemental by Stardock in the same year was pretty ironic, really. Not to mention that a great many potential Armada customers had played GC2 to death and wanted something different, not the same. All that said, I did tend to agree with criticisms of the combat; it's more heavily emphasized in Armada than in DW or Galciv 2 and really needed to offer a more interesting experience than it does.

Armada is the more Galciv like of the two, but not sufficiently so you'll suffer from 'been here, done that' syndrome. DW is now the second best space 4X ever released IMHO (after the fully expanded Sword of the Stars), although I'm not as nostalgic as some. That's my polite way of saying that MoO2 had its time, but has now been overtaken by others. [;)]

[Anguille]

While i love Sword of the stars for the tech tree, the ship design and the fantastic battles, i find that Armada 2526 Supernova has a much better map and UI on the strategic level (imho). The combination of both would be fantastic. The gameplay of Armada has become a lot more deeper since Supernova...try a huge map with many races, a slow tech tree etc...so many options.

DW is so different and so unique, it's not possible to compare. It's a different experience.

Sins of a solar empire is not really a 4x but has great battles too.

I have tried again and again but just don't enjoy GalCiv2. I will try again and maybe one day i will finish a game...maybe.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Anguille

While i love Sword of the stars for the tech tree, the ship design and the fantastic battles, i find that Armada 2526 Supernova has a much better map and UI on the strategic level (imho).

Oh, I agree. SotS is as much space wargame as classic 4X, which is probably why I actually prefer it. It will be interesting to see what approach they have taken in SotS 2.

[Rosseau]

Excellent comments. If you've never played the GalCiv series, just forget them and get Armada.

My problem, you see, is whether I should get Supernova. I love and respect the devs for opening up the XML's for us, so I should just do it based on that.

I will never play Armada multi-player, so is there still a point to getting it?

[Wolfe1759]

I've only been playing Supernova for a few days so the following is more initial impressions than anything else.

I'm highly unlikely to play multiplayer or do any modding of the game myself so have bought Supernova solely for the single player additions.

The two things that have already made it worth the money are System / Planetary Features and Trade Routes both of which add a huge amount of fun to the opening game (i.e. the first 100 or so turns)and open up a whole new range of strategic considerations with certain systems becoming more valuable than others for a more reasons than just being rich vs poor systems.

I've yet to utilise the spying system or other than trade and stealth technologies use much of the new techs but I'm hoping that these will add the same increase in fun to the mid and late game.

In a nutshell I suspect that if you like Armada you will really like Supernova.

[Rosseau]

Thanks for the info. And $15 isn't too much to ask for it.

[mbar]

2 new races
New planets
New planet features
New tech
New trade system

I wasn't interested in multi-player either but PBEM works really well and I could see myself doing more games that way.

[martok]

For anyone who's interested, I posted my main comments on Armada 2526 vs. Distant Worlds here in the General Discussion forum. (Sorry, but I'm too lazy to post the whole thing over again. [:'(] )


Overall, I'd say most people's comments (Wolfe's and Hertston's in particular) are pretty spot-on. I love the concepts and mechanics in DW, but Armada is a heck of a lot easier to pick up and play. I had Armada's basic gameplay down in less than 20 minutes, whereas there are still times when I don't feel like I know entirely what I'm doing when playing Distant Worlds.

Also, I agree with Anguille that adding in SotS's combat model and ship design to Armada's layout & gameplay would be simply divine. I'd think I'd have died and gone to heaven! [8D]

[martok]

Oh, and for whatever it's worth: PBEM games in Supernova are actually rather fun.

That statement, by the way, comes from someone who *never* plays MP matches against other people. Seriously, I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've played online against anyone, in any PC game, in the last fifteen years. Until now.


So when I state that even *I* enjoy PBEM campaigns in Armada, that's definitely saying something. [:D]

[Iceman]

There were some AI improvements too.

[noname]

Yeah, Gal Civ2 bored the hell out of me too which is why I have never tried Distant Worlds.

[Rosseau]

DW, even without the expansion, is least boring of them all. We'll see as more comes in on Supernova.

[gijas17]

Im enjoying all the comments on Armada 2526. I though I was the only nerd who was playing this game. I mean the forums have been dead for the most part, both here and ntronium for some time now. I bought Armada on release last year and like many of you was surprised and impressed but after playing a 300+ turn game I became too familar and the AI started to bore me.

DW is another game I admit like most of you I don't understand fully. The game takes a lot of time especially with the new expansion and patch 1.58 that slows down colony expansion and research but the game is amazing especially with the expansion and the new AI elements. DW is one of the best 4x space grand strategy games I've ever played.

Gal 2 even with all its expansions is boring to me. I don't think I've finished one game due to this. I just lose interest quickly but DW is so busy that you don't have time to lose interest as your always doing something whether it's building a gas mining base, research station or following your explorer ships into new star systems.

SOTS and all expansions is a great game as well but the cartoony charactors and graphics turn me off a bit. I would say SOTS is more tactical than strategy. It's strategy is really in ship building and research where DW combines all these at once which can be a overload on the brain.

Getting back to Armada and Supernova I really enjoy the new expansion but haven't seen all it has to offer yet since Im very early into the game on turn 50. But I'd say Armada is more casual and a lite 4x'er made for players who just want to run a space empire without all the details invloved in researching little things that mean nothing and involved ship building. I like ship building don't get me wrong but it can be a headache sometimes if your trying to keep up with everything else in your empire. I like playing the RT space battles which are lacking in the graphics department and a hard to control sometimes due to the wacky camera. The space map is simple as well but it's very easy to understand although if your playing on a huge galaxy map it can be hard to find were each little ship icon is or where your building in your empire without zooming in.

[Rosseau]

I can only agree. Won't be getting Supernova, but you can't buy them all. I think because I don't understand all about DW/ROTS makes it more exciting as you learn the nuances.