The biggest problem with Distant Worlds

[Apheirox]

While there are things like the AI sometimes leaving much to be desired (something the developers are clearly aware of and are working to improve, it seems) there is one issue that trumphs them all: The victory conditions.

The problem is that ultimately, regardless of whether you are a Boskaran military dictatorship or a supposedly peaceful Teekan democracy, there is ONLY one way to win: War. Because every victory condition revolves around controlling a certain portion of the map (population, colonies and GDP do ALL translate into pure map control - there is no difference whatsoever), the sole way to win is to conquer territory. Ultimately, there is no option for a peaceful victory. This is where DW is ultimately lacking compared to games like Civilization (diplomatic, cultural and scientific victory conditions) and, as an even better example, Armada 2526's wide variety of victory condtions.

Granted, with the RotS expansion, a new 'victory condition' was introduced: Defeat the Shakturi. However, IMHO the Shakturi are badly implemented and the expansion is as such unfortunately a failure in this regard (albeit it introduces a host of very welcome features, like the new GUI and the research tree). The reason I say so is the fact that the Shakturi are ridiculously powerful compared to anyone else. What was clearly meant to happen, then, is for the whole galaxy to gang up on them to stand a chance, but because the AI doesn't 'understand' this the Shakturi slowly but surely burn down each and every AI empire - only the human-controlled one can provide any sort of serious resistance. In other words, the Shakturi 'victory condition' is, well, bugged.

What DW really needs is an expansion pack that seriously steals the great ideas from Armada 2526 and introduces unique victory conditions for each race. The Teekans, for example, score 'victory points' by having a strong economy (but none of this '% of galaxy nonsense'). The Wekkarus can win by mining resources. Zenox score by researching technology. Boskara score both through military conquest AND genocidal bombardments of alien populations. Gizureans are geared towards controlling many colonies. etc etc etc - I think you get it.

Unless such changes are made, DW is, regardless of how refined and complex it is in many areas, nothing more than one big deathmatch blob. Republic or despotism - it doesn't really matter, the objective is always to win wars.

Please Armadadize the game!

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Apheirox,

While I don't agree with your entire post, I do agree that the game would benefit from more victory conditions and the race-specific victory conditions would certainly be a great addition.

With that said, I've won the game with non-warlike races without ever going to war. It all depends on how you set the galaxy and victory conditions and what strategy you use.

Also, there are actually two new victory conditions in ROTS. You can either unite to try to defeat the Shakturi, which depending on your race can mean that you need to build up serious military might or help the other AI empires by giving them economic or technological aid, or you can join with the Shakturi and help them defeat the Ancient Guardians. Both have worked for me without playing Humans.

Regards,

- Erik

[Apheirox]

Hi Erik!

Could you please explain how to set up conditions so war/map control isn't necessarily the only way to win? The way I see it you can only win by a) conquering your neighbours or b) colonizing the planets before they do. All the victory conditions revolve around controlling territory, even the 'GDP' one.

It sounds to me like you won 'peacefully' by beelining for the colonization techs and aggressively colonized the planets ahead of the AI. That's the only way to win without going to war given the current rules.

[bertipa]

Kicking the Shakaturi a$$ is not a bad way to win, granted that it is also a military victory and you have to disable the other victory conditions to get there.
Unfortunately DW is an RTS and, by definition, not really deep in planets/civilization development. Without more things to do in that direction I don't see much more ways to win as a possible development.

I have to say that without the Shakaturi end-of-times galactic war DW would be already archived in my history of strategic games corner and I would not be active here.

[Apheirox]

DW is a 4x, not an RTS. There's no reason it couldn't have a little more depth than simply 'kill your opponents'.

I take it you haven't played Armada 2526. Nor Civilization. Nor Galactic Civilizations II (another prime example of multiple victory conditions, although I positively hate that game and don't understand how people can possibly be impressed by it). It's not like having a little more 'depth' would be hard to create. DW is about as shallow as it gets, under the hood.

[Foraven]

It is possible to win the game without going through a war of conquest. For example, when your empire is thriving and with good rep, other empires colonies often join yours. Then you have colonization techs that open more and more worlds to you, and unlike the AI, you can colonize less optimal planets to boost your control. If another empire gets too big, it's always possible to break it apart with espionage (if they don't break apart on their own). In my current game, i had only a handful of wars, most of my expansion has been peaceful and my Empire is now the biggest and most developed. I haven't won yet though, there are still over a dozen other empires left and my biggest ally (that was much bigger than me) just broke into 3 empires (not my doing). If i keep this up, i'll eventually win, will just take a long time... Unless the Shaks bother to show up.

[Apheirox]

That's pretty much what I mentioned in my response to Erik. You're doing option b) - outteching the AI in colonization technology (easy, because the AI fails to prioritize these techs and also doesn't build enough research buildings in general due to reluctance to upgrade home planet space station and lack of exploration ships which translate into not finding research boosting planets and independents - the human player can easily have 5x the science rate of the AI during the first decade of the game if he upgrades his homeworld spaceport to a model that includes extra research modules to fully leverage the research potential) and aggressively colonizing (read: exploiting AI weaknesses) to claim almost all planets ahead of it.

I suppose I should rephrase my criticism. There are TWO ways to win the game: Warfare or exploitative colonization revolving around abusing AI weaknesses. It doesn't really help the picture of the game, though...

The game is screaming for not just a stronger AI (which is something I think the developers are aware of) but also more options for victory, be that economic, diplomatic, cultural, scientific or otherwise.

[Data]

I fully agree with Apheirox, more so now that I've revisited galciv2. But let's not forget that those games are mature ones and DW is still young with a one man dev team. There's a lot of room for improvments and improvments are coming. If we have the chance that DW will be THE 4x game than I'm willing to wait for them....untill then I'll play sandbox games with less fighting and more of everything else.
We all have tons of requests, untill we have them just launching the game and living in that universe is a great way to relax for me.

[Astax]

I am still playing my first ROTS game :/ I already love the addition of Guardians.  Its just so much awesome.  It's defiantly step in the right direction.

[bertipa]

ORIGINAL: Apheirox

DW is a 4x, not an RTS. There's no reason it couldn't have a little more depth than simply 'kill your opponents'.

DW is an RTS, a 4X RTS.
I'm sincerely doubtful that you will ever be able to dedicate the same time in planet building that you can with a TBS. A4X TBS.
They are different beasts.
I'm fascinated by the living galaxy feel but it came at a price.

I take it you haven't played Armada 2526. Nor Civilization. Nor Galactic Civilizations II (another prime example of multiple victory conditions, although I positively hate that game and don't understand how people can possibly be impressed by it).

I would call all the three deeply flawed if I had at least a medium flawed modern example to make a comparison.
I am more annoyed with the 'MOO2/CIV2 are the best' crowd but that is partially my fault because at the time I was not interested in pc games.

It's not like having a little more 'depth' would be hard to create. DW is about as shallow as it gets, under the hood.

RTS mechanics makes it even more difficult to deepening it but the developer seems honestly doing his best.

[Igard]

I hated the influence system used in GalCiv, but I did like being able to win the game through peacefully taking enemy systems.

What I'd like to see in DW is a diplomatic relation, where we can absorb a smaller empire into our own. Much like the Federation does in Star Trek.

[Apheirox]

ORIGINAL: Data

I fully agree with Apheirox, more so now that I've revisited galciv2. But let's not forget that those games are mature ones and DW is still young with a one man dev team.

... considering which it is a helluva lot more impressive than its competitors (especially civ 5 - huge budget and STILL they can't get the basics down). I'm not here to bash the game but to point out where the flaws lie and how to fix them. DW is a game that is extremely strong but bogged down by a few problems. I want to see that potential realized because the game deserves it. Along with improving the AI, improving the victory conditions is the single best thing the developer(s) can do for the game.

[Data]

We're all on the same page but there is a trap here for Elliot in that we each think that the top priority is a different thing: either victoy conditions or diplomacy or exploration algorithm or..... The only thing we all agree on is more intelligent AI; and that's probably the most difficult of them all, go figure [:)]

[MartialDoctor]

After thinking it over, I do agree with Apheirox on the victory conditions and his points.  Although, from what I've seen, I like how the Shakturi work in the game (although only seen them once).

However, even with more victory conditions, it still wouldn't change the fact that the AI fights multiple wars and doesn't tend towards alliances naturally (i.e. without bribery).

So, I agree with the OP's main point but don't agree that's it's DW's biggest problem.

[Apheirox]

I think part of the reason why the AI is so interested in getting into wars is precisely this: that there's no other way to win. So, the AI was DESIGNED to seek out wars - much like how your hawky advisors used to constantly suggest attacking 'targets of opportunity' before that was patched out and relaxed a bit.

Maybe an AI balance pass to go along with the addition of race-specific victory conditions so the Zenox won't go all blood thirsty on you but stay home with the books instead like they're supposed to?

I think it would be a lot easier to conduct diplomacy with an AI empire that was trying to win by peaceful means. So yeah, many of the issues with the AI tie in with the problem of war being the only option.

[cookie monster]

I was just doing some testing and an empire of 6,000 military strength DOW'd me. I am 160,000 MS.

I have 750 troops and am planning to squash them soon.

What kind of AI programming allows such rubbish.

A simple military strength comparison would stop these stupid wars. I dont think they liked the trade sanctions I had on them the AI hates a trade sanction.

[Apheirox]

That's one pretty cocky empire.

Squash 'em. [:D]

[Data]

I dont think they liked the trade sanctions I had on them the AI hates a trade sanction.

It should hate dying more

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: Data

I dont think they liked the trade sanctions I had on them the AI hates a trade sanction.

It should hate dying more

Nope their suicidal, I've just got my strike fleets in position I'm going in with 500 crack troopers.

[Data]

500 cookie troopers you say....oh no, it's crack. So they're stoned? Ah, never mind