New Player introduction

[Gizuria]

Another new player reporting in. I've been a big fan of Empire Building games ever since I discovered the Civilization series of games years and years ago but I've never played a Space Empire game before. I came across this game while browsing Matrix Games' boards a couple of weeks ago and, from what I read on these boards, it sounded like it would be perfect for me. I took the plunge and bought the entire package last weekend and have spent almost all my game-time playing it since. It's certainly a massively complex beast and it's going to be quite a while before I really know what I'm doing. It hasn't disappointed me in any way at all. And it looks like we're going to get another expansion later this year which will expand the Invasion/Ground Combat systems substantially. I might have actually learned how to play the game by then.[:D]

I'm the kind of player who derives a great deal of pleasure from learning how a game works through trial and error. However, it would be good to be clear on this before I go much further. It's been fun learning about the Tech Trees and the different weapon types. At first, up until today in fact, I was researching pretty much everything at Level 1 before progressing to Level 2 and, with Ship design set to automated, I was offered the chance to upgrade my existing ships with these new weapons/improvements. Now, I'm designing all my own ships and it looks like I'll have to redesign a new category of ship every time I complete research on a weapon type if I want it to be incorporated. Is that right?

BTW, one suggestion I might offer is that Aggressive races get an in-game ship-size bonus while Passive races get a slight reduction. This might help Aggressive races become more effective and dangerous in the game. No doubt it's been suggested before though.

[weblife]

Aggression is not the same as being good at war. [:)]

It just increases the chance that war will happen, and the odds are good that the aggressive race tolerates ongoing war quite well.

On the other hand you can have a passive race with tech advantages, who will prefer not to war, but if they do... beware!

[Ralzakark]

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

Now, I'm designing all my own ships and it looks like I'll have to redesign a new category of ship every time I complete research on a weapon type if I want it to be incorporated. Is that right?

Yes, unless it automatically upgrades (shown by an upward arrow on the tech tree).

Welcome to the game!

[Gizuria]

ORIGINAL: weblife

Aggression is not the same as being good at war. [:)]

It just increases the chance that war will happen, and the odds are good that the aggressive race tolerates ongoing war quite well.

On the other hand you can have a passive race with tech advantages, who will prefer not to war, but if they do... beware!

Absolutely. I would argue that to be good at war, you need a very capable and well-equipped military married to a commander of incredible ability. The Mongols under Genghis Khan and the Greeks under Alexander the Great's rule are both very fine examples of what they can do together and what happens when the leader dies. This game can build a fine, capable military but the AI is never going to provide us with a commander of exceptional talent. Since there's no multi-player option at the moment, an AI opponent is all we've got to present us with a challenge. Bigger, tougher ships for the Boskara, fo one, would help so that you get an auger of disaster when you locate their Empire close to your own. [X(]

So far, the AI in this game appears to be doing a much better job than Civ V's AI and for that, I'm very grateful. I'm finding that the AI in all the Matrix Games I've bought so far is very, very good indeed. I have 'Gary Grigsby's War in the East' and 'Command Ops: BftB-HttR' and they both provide exceptional challenge for a human player, far better than I'd ever expect to get from a computer opponent. When I play games like these, I'm a role-player and so an AI of reasonable ability is enough of a foil for me to enjoy a bit of escapist fun.[8D]

[Ralzakark]

I like the AI in DW as well. Not perfect of course, but it usually provides a challenge. I agree about the Command Ops AI, it's the best I have seen.

From the Matrix games I have the only AI which does not seem very good is that for War in the Pacific, especially the Admiral's Edition. The game is simply too complex for the AI to do a good job, and to counter that it is given advantages and simplifications which the player does not have. Brilliant game for two human players perhaps, but not for one.

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark

I like the AI in DW as well. Not perfect of course, but it usually provides a challenge. I agree about the Command Ops AI, it's the best I have seen.

From the Matrix games I have the only AI which does not seem very good is that for War in the Pacific, especially the Admiral's Edition. The game is simply too complex for the AI to do a good job, and to counter that it is given advantages and simplifications which the player does not have. Brilliant game for two human players perhaps, but not for one.

right about now the Admiral's addition ai is probably better than I am as the Allies. I just walked into a horrific situation at Ndeni in November 43',we are playing scenario#2 GC. I got my wish for a midway style battle with a touch of Jutland thrown in............. problem is i lost both.........in an epic way that poets will write about.

[onomastikon]

Hello FD and welcome to the forums! Nice to hear some fresh suggestions et al. I won't add anything to your comments except

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

I would argue that to be good at war, you need a very capable and well-equipped military married to a commander of incredible ability. The Mongols under Genghis Khan and the Greeks under Alexander the Great's rule are both very fine examples of what they can do together and what happens when the leader dies.

the (slightly ironically meant) addendum: what about (1) posthumous narrative spin? By that I mean the way that history gets written and told and mythologized and warped (with tongue firmly in cheek and a tip of my hat to essentialists who claim there is one true reality independently of the way our language frames it). What about (2) serious random effects and confusion? Think of the freak blow that shatters the champion's jaw. What about (3) divine intervention? Think of ... ah forget it. What about the (4) often overlooked difference between tactical brilliance and strategic blindness (Napoleon, Forrest Griffin) or strategic brilliance and tactical suboptimality (some anecdotes Sun Tzu told) or even tactical brilliance without any strategic goal worth mentioning -- my example to sum it all up. I just had to think of the story (#1) most of us Jews tell at Chanukkah of the bizarre partisan struggle Judah Macabee led against the forces of Antioch, in which the underdog (Macabee and his clan) beats overwhelming odds (#2) to cleanse the temple (#3) but lacks any sort of strategic mind whatsoever (#4) -- correctly called a general, Judah will not go down in history as a mastermind of strategic power.

Erm sorry, welcome to the forums!