Matrix Games Forums

If I want huge fleets constantly duking it out, endlessly supplied by a mindless and simple economy then I'll play SoaSE. I like what the dev is trying to do here. I like getting to do at least some intelligent management of my economic and scientific assets to create, shape and maintain my military. The current mix may not be just right, but the overall depth and shape of things looks good. As far as the comments on population ferrying goes, well, if that bothers you then think of it as minerals or money or whatever. What you are moving are economic resources, not necessarily just people. The automation feature makes this simple.

I do think that the interface is lacking in feedback info. For instance, I cannot seem to easily find out what kind of planet I have AFTER I colonize it. And the current unrest state of each colony should be readily apparent on the map or the top screen when a planet is accessed. Income should be next to $$$ reserves on the main screen. Fleet strength at a star should be another "in your face" item that does not need to be searched out. These types of things would ease the task (or sometimes chore) of recognising and dealing with "situations." As Tom mentioned the lack of data on building effects is a problem effecting decision making.

I agree with Tom, this is a major undertaking for such a small company, to just say, we're making a 4x ,but we're gonna reinvent the wheel on you guys, but not tell you.

Still, if you wanna experiment, maybe you should get the basics right or something...
I play a lot of boardgames, and I must say, maybe he's drawn his inspiration from them, as most boardgames these days are designed so no single player will get 'knocked' out as the others will get too big for their shoes if they expand...so I guess here its sorta a MP friendly scenario, but ...it doesn't feel like it was planned very well.

It just occurred to me that my proposal for Oort Habitats and Space Habitats might create problems for the ground combat model, because it is possible to build those where there is no planet, and the ground combat model depicts operations on a planet.  On the other hand, it is already possible to colonize a system which has only an asteroid belt, in which case there are only two structures (the default industry plus one a player can build) and a maximum of five million population.  And asteroids can be invaded using the ground combat system.

If the ground combat system can handle invasions of asteroids, it can handle invasions of Oort and Space Habitats, which are just 10x versions of colonizable asteroids.

Edit:

My other second thought concerns my proposed hard limitation on the numbers of planetary defense units, to prevent "turtle defense" players from bankrupting themselves with the maintenance costs of their endless buillding of such units. My initial thought was to base the limit on population - five missile bases, two non-militia ground units and one orbital per colony plus the same for each five million population and Planetary Defense Center. Instead I'd base it on Structures - five bases, two non-militia ground units and one orbital per colony, plus the same for each Planetary Defense Center and every two Structure boxs (which is one per 6.67 million population). This change would limit maximum planetary defenses to something manageable absent lots of expensive PDC's.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The population game is not just unfun, it's deeply silly. I for one don't accept that a planet must automatically riot at pop cap no matter what improvements are in place and what tech you've got, especially when buro jacks up unhappiness. The only way around this Malthusian trap is to pick the right race.

Population in this game isn't a resource, it's a burden and a ticking time bomb.

Agreed - in my post I advocated for a drastic reduction of population growth, rather than adding "happiness" structures etc.

Edit: of course, the problem with AH Advanced Civilization is that these classic civs were, well, not all that advanced. At least from our perspective.

Have you read "The Mote in God's Eye"? The Moters civ was quite advanced, and extremely Malthusian.

In AdvCiv population isn't just a pain in the arse, they're the means you use to expand your influence - without population you can't make cities, no cities mean no civ advances or trade, etc. Inevitably your pop will grow too much, so you need to expand and enter in conflict with neighboring civs or just become agreeable with the fact that there's not enough food for all of them.

The similarity I saw was in the first point: population = influence & capability, so deploying population becomes a strategic decision. And as I pointed above, I find that in Armada it just grows far too quickly to become manageable.

ORIGINAL: Janster

Guys, the 'population game' is not fun...and definitely not fun with current transport system. I don't mind new, but uhm ..fun?

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Having to make little transport convoys is more of an irritation than a feature.

That said, I think its one of those things that if you make 1 transport at each new planet and people in > people out as you colonize new worlds and just leave it on continuous shuttle may be the best work around.

The idea behind it was good mind you, having to spend money to maintain a merchant marine. I just wish that it could be 1) automated and 2)was used for trade between planets, generating a small amount of income.

Basically, if the AI could control it, then you build transports and assign them to the 'merchant fleet'. These would also be subject to piracy, so you'd need some escorts. In the end, it would give you some money, but also be offset by additional maintainence. But that is just my daydreaming. [;)]

Oddly enough, Mote has been in my thoughts regarding this game quite a bit.

That book depended on one assumption to make the story work: that the Moties were stupid. That despite hundreds of thousands of years of civilization, and many cycles, and a demonstable talent for genetic manipulation, the Moties never ever got around to inventing birth control.

The humans did it for them in the sequel.

Edit: the other assumption the book made, that they were stuck in their own star system more or less forever, was far more defensible. (But, ironically, gotten rid of in the sequel when the protostar made new Alderson points and allowed them easy exit from Mote Prime.)

Not. My recollection is that Mote's authors said someplace, perhaps in the sequel, that the Moties who used birth control died off with only those who were adverse to birth control passing on their genes to later generations, ie., the Moties became adverse to birth control through genetic selection.

The humans did it to them without their consent by right of might.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Oddly enough, Mote has been in my thoughts regarding this game quite a bit.

That book depended on one assumption to make the story work: that the Moties were stupid. That despite hundreds of thousands of years of civilization, and many cycles, and a demonstable talent for genetic manipulation, the Moties never ever got around to inventing birth control.

The humans did it for them in the sequel.

Yes, like I said, it depended on them being stupid. This kind of determinism is a bit hard to swallow. With their backs against the wall and facing civilizational collapse and mass extinction, they have plenty of incentive to change their ways. Having the humans act as a deus ex machina to make them do what they choose not to do is a mere plot device.
 
The story works if you accept these assumptions, but I mostly do not. I think the book rather reflects the time it was written, back in the 70's I believe. Overpopulation was quite the rage back then as a disaster device. (Soylent Green came out around this time as well.) But it's rather dated.
 
A similar book written today would probably look to climate change as the disaster du jour.
 
 

Furthermore I am not aware of any computer space game, anywhere, with something like a naval base which dramatically reduces maintenance expenses.

 
Well, BotF2:Supremacy has this Depot facility which lets you mothball ships whe you don't need them, thereby reducing upkeep. But the game is still being developed - and who knows when/if it's ever gonna be finished  [;)]
 
 

It dawned on me, after I posted the above, that the dispute here concerns what type of game Armada 2526 is to be, and not its economic model.

 
Exactly. Is it for the "fun" people, or the "challenge" people. I think it tries to accomodate the 2. The "challenge" people find it a bit lacking in depth, because they were expecting a full blown 4X, and not a light version. Nothing wrong with it, it's the trend nowadays. Everything is streamlined so that the game can appeal to other markets other than niche players. Most people don't have the time or the patience to play real strategy anymore (micro as it is labeled these days).
I really like the game a a light 4X. I still love a good *mental* challenge though, and that's what other games are for.
In a nutshell, the game has to be seen in the light for which it was created. A streamlined game with combat as its main focus. If you want a "quick" game, Armada does it very well.

I do think that the interface is lacking in feedback info. For instance, I cannot seem to easily find out what kind of planet I have AFTER I colonize it.

Colony tab, upper left, # of planets in the pic shows Quality - tooltip too.

And the current unrest state of each colony should be readily apparent on the map or the top screen when a planet is accessed.

When there are problems, the icon for the current situation (unrest, riot, rebellion) appears in the Colony tab, upper right.

Income should be next to $$$ reserves on the main screen.

Hopefully in a patch, it's on Bob's to do list.