Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: adecoy95


personally my favorite method of approach in this was in sword of the stars 1/2. each race having unique propulsion methods made the way they are played hugely different and rich in replayability and depth.

Although I like DWU it is in my mind flawed in this regard. There is simply not enough variation in what races can discover full stop let alone their propulsion methods. Even if two races discovered the same tech they would not necessarily use the same method of implementing it, actually it's highly unlikely. It this I'm ignoring spying.

Just take a projectile weapon. Various races have a preference for this type of weapon and with 6 properties that can be changed there could all have slightly different versions. With a preference for this type of weapon other types (beams, etc) could be hidden until discovered (after much research and stealing).

There are other important elements but not many of them make a space game feel LESS like a space game than starlanes. They make the entire game feel like simplified RISK.

IMPOSSIBLE: RISK is such a stupid waste of precious time that cannot be simplified.. [:'(]

in my opinion there are many 4X space games that use StarLanes and despite this are GREAT 4x games.

the first that come in my mind is Space Empires 4, one the greatest space 4X of all times, which cannot be seriously compared to Risk under any point of view.

let alone to a simplified Risk..

no joking here [:@]

If I want land-based strategy (roads,chokepoints,mountains) I'll play Civ.

if you want a realistic Free Space movement strategy game you must also have realistic fuel consumption and a realistic supply system.

StarLanes can be viewed as an over-simplification of the above.

and they are not "Roads in Space".

The Paradox grand strategy 4X game Stellaris allows the player to choose their empire's FTL technology during the game's setup phase. There are three types. One uses star lanes (fast but with some instability during travel), the second uses wormholes with star gates (very fast with more possible instability), and the third is free travel (slower with complete travel stability). You have different races using different modes of travel in each game.

Stellaris releases on May 9th, 2016.

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo

if you want a realistic Free Space movement strategy game you must also have realistic fuel consumption and a realistic supply system.

Realistic fuel consumption like DW is nice but really not required. MOO 1 & 2 did just fine with abstracted fuel range (which increased with tech) and free movement. It certainly didn't feel any less realistic to me when playing MOO 2 just because they had fuel range instead of real fuel.

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo

StarLanes can be viewed as an over-simplification of the above.

and they are not "Roads in Space".

Not really true. With starlanes you might have to travel through 3 or 4 star systems just to get to an immediately adjacent star, simply because there is no "space road" going straight to that star. This situation occurs in the new MOO game all the time.

If they are just an oversimplification of fuel then you should be able to travel straight to an adjacent star, not be forced to follow a crazy roundabout detour with no other choice just because you have to follow an arbitrary fixed roadmap. So sadly yes, "roads in space" are exactly what they are.

Watched some let's play vids and whilst it looks well done it's not really doing anything different than any number of other 4x games I have and never play anymore.

ORIGINAL: SirHoraceHarkness

Watched some let's play vids and whilst it looks well done it's not really doing anything different than any number of other 4x games I have and never play anymore.

I don't have any great problem with star lanes, although I prefer to have tech which later makes them redundant (which I believe Polaris Sector has). I gave the game about 10 hours, but it just never really grabbed me. Not really sure why, but I think it's partly because the emphasis is more on 'wargaming', and that isn't so interesting to me, and partly because I found the tech tree something of a wasted opportunity. The game has quite an interesting tech system, but I never really cared about acquiring new tech.

So I think it does do some new things, but unfortunately not in a way that I cared about.

Osito

Lucian, there are not only fuel implications with free space movement vs Starlanes, there should be also a realistic supply sub-system to take in consideration.

and also, if you want to freely travel on space (a thing that, by the way, I liked very much [8D]) you should also have the possibility to intercept [or to be intercepted] in that space your foes.

I liked very much both MoO and MoO2 and I consider them two of my space 4X beloved games, but their recipe, as all recipes, are by far not perfect [:)]

we will see if the new Paradox game Stellaris or the announced DW2 will do better than them, StarLanes or not.

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo

Lucian, there are not only fuel implications with free space movement vs Starlanes, there should be also a realistic supply sub-system to take in consideration.

and also, if you want to freely travel on space (a thing that, by the way, I liked very much [8D]) you should also have the possibility to intercept [or to be intercepted] in that space your foes.

I liked very much both MoO and MoO2 and I consider them two of my space 4X beloved games, but their recipe, as all recipes, are far by perfect [:)]

we will see if the new Paradox game Stellaris or the announced DW2 will do better than them, StarLanes or not.

Absolutely agree with you here, I loved deep space intercepts in DW and SOTS and its a pity that they are impossible with MOO 1 or 2. But I would much rather have the abstracted fuel range of MOO (with all its problems) than be forced to resort to space-roads which make the game feel (strategically) nothing at all like space.

Also with Stellaris, starlanes will be entirely optional. If you dont like them you can set up your game so that they are unavailable to ANY race. Conversely if you like them you can set things up so that they are the ONLY FTL method. Options are a wonderful thing, a lesson that I wish Polaris Sector had learned.

By the way, this might be mistaken as a MOO 4 or Polaris Sector map but is actually RISK without the artwork, look familiar?

Spacesector.com - 5.5/10

Like I said - mediocre.

http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2016/04 ... or-review/

*edit*
To be absolutely clear, I'm not implying that Polaris Sector is rubbish. From the review it clearly isn't. But I see nothing to suggest that it can be the nicotine patch for my DW addiction. Waiting for my next DW fag, and this is nicotine chewing gum. I want my fag; I want it NOW!

ORIGINAL: Lucian
Not really true. With starlanes you might have to travel through 3 or 4 star systems just to get to an immediately adjacent star, simply because there is no "space road" going straight to that star. This situation occurs in the new MOO game all the time.

You've never driven in London, have you?

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

Spacesector.com - 5.5/10

Like I said - mediocre.

http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2016/04 ... or-review/

*edit*
To be absolutely clear, I'm not implying that Polaris Sector is rubbish. From the review it clearly isn't. But I see nothing to suggest that it can be the nicotine patch for my DW addiction. Waiting for my next DW fag, and this is nicotine chewing gum. I want my fag; I want it NOW!

waiting the next DW chapter, maybe the next Paradox space game Stellaris can be the nicotine patch for your DW addiction [8D]

By the way, this might be mistaken as a MOO 4 or Polaris Sector map but is actually RISK without the artwork, look familiar?

this Risk semplified map resemble any space game with StarLanes exactly as resemble any Point-to-Point movement or area-to-area movement boardgame, wargame or computer game.

there are literally tons of great games in this categories: Path of Glory, all the AGEOD wargames, Twilight Struggle are only the first that come in my mind.

your use of one of the worst of them (RISK) as a "yardstick" do not necessarily mean that every game with such a movement system is automatically rubbish.

The starlanes don't bother me.The bland experience did.

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

The starlanes don't bother me.The bland experience did.

I 1.000.000% agree with your statement.

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo
your use of one of the worst of them (RISK) as a "yardstick" do not necessarily mean that every game with such a movement system is automatically rubbish.

Now now, be fair. For its time, Risk was actually quite good. It was released in 1957 (French version), and again in 1959 (English).

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

You've never driven in London, have you?

lol, I actually have. Its a perfect example of how starlanes force a space game to mimic land-based movement and strategy. The last thing I want in my epic space game is a poor RISK clone.

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo

your use of one of the worst of them (RISK) as a "yardstick" do not necessarily mean that every game with such a movement system is automatically rubbish.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm fine with roads, choke points and mountains in a LAND-BASED game. I just dont want them being force-fed into my epic SPACE strategy game. When I play a land game I want to experience land strategy. But when I play a space game I want to be challenged by strategic situations that are consistent with a space environment.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

ORIGINAL: Lucian
Not really true. With starlanes you might have to travel through 3 or 4 star systems just to get to an immediately adjacent star, simply because there is no "space road" going straight to that star. This situation occurs in the new MOO game all the time.

You've never driven in London, have you?

You've never driven in London, have you?

I would be interested if a space 4x implemented a toll charge/tariff option as part of an open borders agreement.

ORIGINAL: Lucian

I'm not saying that at all. I'm fine with roads, choke points and mountains in a LAND-BASED game. I just dont want them being force-fed into my epic SPACE strategy game. When I play a land game I want to experience land strategy. But when I play a space game I want to be challenged by strategic situations that are consistent with a space environment.

The problem with your view is that nobody really knows what is consistent with a space environment. Based on current knowledge all we know is that it would take at least 4 years to get to the nearest star, and tens of thousands of years to get to the other side of our own galaxy. And that's assuming we have an engineering solution to the problem of accelerating a large object close to the speed of light.

Thus, from a thematic point of view, it can make sense for a space game to have space travel only possible with fixed star lanes, based on the following design principles:

1. Free movement is so slow that it is irrelevant within the context of the timescale of the game.
2. 'Jump' movement can only be achieved using 'wormholes' linking certain stars.

Obviously, people can choose not to play such games, if they don't like them - for example, I won't play any space game that doesn't at least allow for the possibility of multiple planets in each star system,. So far as star lanes are concerned, I would prefer there to be more space travel options available (like appears to be the case for Stellaris).

Out of interest, what do you think of the new MoO system which has star lanes that are upgradable with buildable jump stations that allow you to connect any two stars?

Osito

ORIGINAL: HerpInYourDerp

I would be interested if a space 4x implemented a toll charge/tariff option as part of an open borders agreement.

Yeah, and there should be an option to charge extra for 4x4 spaceships. And also to lose someone's payment details and apply a penalty fine. That would be a nice way to start a war.

Osito

P.s. Seriously, though, your idea isn't a bad one.