Matrix Games Forums

Greetings all!

I've been lurking 'round these parts for awhile now after finding out about Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager. And while I am certainly interested in the game, I do have some comments and questions. My first official post on the forum... and it'll be a longer one, so get comfortable and grab a coffee (or whatever your preferred beverage is).

Comments

The biggest concern I have about the game is the lack of a "race to the Moon" aspect. I have a hard time seeing how the game, as currently designed, is going to sustain interest for the player without such a race. I mean, it seems all the player will be competing against is an AI bureaucrat which will arbitrarily raise or lower one's budget. That just doesn't seem very compelling compared to a race where you have a definite strategic element in trying to match wits with the other side, as well as direct competition. While I can see the appeal of the whole "badges" things for some players, to me that too just doesn't seem all that compelling. (They're rather like achievements in Xbox games, and I'm not really that interested in those.)

I find the lack of a race particularly disappointing in that, with so much information about the Soviet lunar program which has become available over the years (see the Encyclopedia Astronautix web site for a wealth of such information), it could have served as the basis for a very interesting and deeply strategic game, with a great deal of replayability.

Imagine, for example, that instead of only being able to build the Apollo capsule as it was actually designed, you could instead choose to build the GE D-2, Convair M-1, Martin 410, or even the Apollo D-2 direct ascent capsule designs for Apollo. Each of those designs would offer something different to accomplish the task in addition to the historical Apollo design. Combine that with the different paths to the Moon (e.g. direct ascent single launch, direct ascent EOR, LOR, even lunar surface rendezvous), and the strategic choices available to the player expand enormously. Then there's all the potential spacecraft and missions on the Soviet side. Put all these components together and a new, updated race to the Moon game would be a fantastically deep and interesting strategic exercise, with many routes for the player to explore. I think it would be outstanding.

But that's not what SPM will be doing. Okay, I accept that. But how is the alternate history the game is pursuing going to come close to matching the intensity and strategic depth of a race to the Moon? I'm just having a hard time picturing from what's been described so far how it'll sustain interest without such a clear goal and competition. Convince me!

Questions

I've seen how there will be various programs in the game which weren't pursued in real life (e.g. a direct ascent lunar mission using Gemini). But are these alternatives limited to the routes to the Moon (or other similar goals)? How much alternative hardware can we opt to pursue as players? For example, when it comes to Apollo, can we only build the Apollo capsule as it was actually designed? Or can we build the Soyuz-like GE D-2 design for Apollo? Or any of the other competing designs for the lunar capsule? It isn't quite clear from what's been discussed so far about the game just exactly what our manned spacecraft options are. I'd find it a bit disappointing personally if we're only limited to the lunar capsule designs which were actually used — those alternate designs present some interesting possibilities.


Anyway, those are my comments and questions. If the developers can answer some of these, that'd be great. I am interested in this game, but my interest level could be much higher depending on just what the answers are. Thanks!

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

Greetings all!

I've been lurking 'round these parts for awhile now after finding out about Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager. And while I am certainly interested in the game, I do have some comments and questions. My first official post on the forum... and it'll be a longer one, so get comfortable and grab a coffee (or whatever your preferred beverage is).

Hello Saturn V, welcome to the forums [:)]

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

Comments

The biggest concern I have about the game is the lack of a "race to the Moon" aspect. I have a hard time seeing how the game, as currently designed, is going to sustain interest for the player without such a race. I mean, it seems all the player will be competing against is an AI bureaucrat which will arbitrarily raise or lower one's budget. That just doesn't seem very compelling compared to a race where you have a definite strategic element in trying to match wits with the other side, as well as direct competition. While I can see the appeal of the whole "badges" things for some players, to me that too just doesn't seem all that compelling. (They're rather like achievements in Xbox games, and I'm not really that interested in those.)

The appeal of the game comes from having lots of historical and fictional programs available, a budget and the complete freedom to try different strategies, in the same way that you would enjoy playing around with SimCity or any sim-like game without having to beat an opponent.

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

I find the lack of a race particularly disappointing in that, with so much information about the Soviet lunar program which has become available over the years (see the Encyclopedia Astronautix web site for a wealth of such information), it could have served as the basis for a very interesting and deeply strategic game, with a great deal of replayability.

I've borrowed lots of ideas from Encyclopedia Astronautica when I started designing the game back in early 2007. I agree with you that there's a lot of information regarding the Soviet lunar programs, but from the very beginning I wanted SPM to go beyond the Moon landings and quickly realized that creating two interesting tech-trees (i.e., one for the americans and one for the soviets) that span all the way to a Mars mission was going to be a herculean task, so I settled for an interesting single tech-tree (which is also proving to be a herculean task, but that's another story... [:)])

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

Imagine, for example, that instead of only being able to build the Apollo capsule as it was actually designed, you could instead choose to build the GE D-2, Convair M-1, Martin 410, or even the Apollo D-2 direct ascent capsule designs for Apollo. Each of those designs would offer something different to accomplish the task in addition to the historical Apollo design. Combine that with the different paths to the Moon (e.g. direct ascent single launch, direct ascent EOR, LOR, even lunar surface rendezvous), and the strategic choices available to the player expand enormously. Then there's all the potential spacecraft and missions on the Soviet side. Put all these components together and a new, updated race to the Moon game would be a fantastically deep and interesting strategic exercise, with many routes for the player to explore. I think it would be outstanding.

Part I of the game already features different lunar landing approaches: you have the LOR used by Apollo, but you also have a two-crew Direct Ascent option, lunar flybys and lunar orbital flights based on Gemini and an EOR option.

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

But that's not what SPM will be doing. Okay, I accept that. But how is the alternate history the game is pursuing going to come close to matching the intensity and strategic depth of a race to the Moon? I'm just having a hard time picturing from what's been described so far how it'll sustain interest without such a clear goal and competition. Convince me!

If you have an interest in space I believe you'll enjoy SPM; the amount of options available is quite big, so I'm sure you'll have fun by trying different approaches.

We are considering the idea of developing a separate race to the Moon game if SPM does well, so make sure you support us so that we can continue developing games [:)]

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

Questions

I've seen how there will be various programs in the game which weren't pursued in real life (e.g. a direct ascent lunar mission using Gemini). But are these alternatives limited to the routes to the Moon (or other similar goals)? How much alternative hardware can we opt to pursue as players? For example, when it comes to Apollo, can we only build the Apollo capsule as it was actually designed? Or can we build the Soyuz-like GE D-2 design for Apollo? Or any of the other competing designs for the lunar capsule? It isn't quite clear from what's been discussed so far about the game just exactly what our manned spacecraft options are. I'd find it a bit disappointing personally if we're only limited to the lunar capsule designs which were actually used — those alternate designs present some interesting possibilities.

We have some other options, like lunar Gemini and things like that (nearly all borrowed from historical documents from NASA). We are introducing new stuff based on the feedback we have received since the game was announced. As an example, after hearing some comments about why didn't we feature a Soviet booster in the Sputnik missions, we redid the assets for that mission in order to use the R-7 booster instead of the Jupiter-C used in the first version.

If time permits, we'll even add some more missions during the early access program. A few months ago I bought a copy of this book and it's full of crazy designs in there...

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

Anyway, those are my comments and questions. If the developers can answer some of these, that'd be great. I am interested in this game, but my interest level could be much higher depending on just what the answers are. Thanks!

I hope you're still interested in SPM! Make sure to join the early access program that starts at the end of this month so that you can get a chance of shaping up the way the game will evolve during the later stages of development.

Cheers,

ORIGINAL: Nacho84
The appeal of the game comes from having lots of historical and fictional programs available, a budget and the complete freedom to try different strategies, in the same way that you would enjoy playing around with SimCity or any sim-like game without having to beat an opponent.

and thast i think biggest problém, ideály it will be if current game will be as "sandbox" mode, with second "real" mode in which you compete as one country against another, so eveone will find his liking.

Im for one like this concept as Im an cousious player, in old Baris I never attempted a moonlanding in the sixties. So I usually won if the oponent failed utterly. Most other occations I was sacked or runner up. With this type of play I can enjoy my love for space related missions and do it in my own pace. But to be frank, I probablygonna buy and play any future aproach on doing a BARIS challenge with this engine. But not before this game had the Mars missions in the 3rd part.

ORIGINAL: Nacho84

Hello Saturn V, welcome to the forums

Thank you! I've been lurking here on and off for a few years. I may have even posted here for awhile some years back, but if so I've long since forgotten that moniker. So I went with a new one more in keeping with SPM. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Nacho84

The appeal of the game comes from having lots of historical and fictional programs available, a budget and the complete freedom to try different strategies, in the same way that you would enjoy playing around with SimCity or any sim-like game without having to beat an opponent.

Yes, I can see that being appealing sometimes. But that does lack the tension and tight focus a race with an opponent provides. That's why I'm having a bit of trouble seeing the similar sort of tension and focus in SPM's campaign mode.

ORIGINAL: Nacho84

Part I of the game already features different lunar landing approaches: you have the LOR used by Apollo, but you also have a two-crew Direct Ascent option, lunar flybys and lunar orbital flights based on Gemini and an EOR option.

Yes, but what about the hardware? I really want to try building that Soyuz-like General Electric design for Apollo. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Nacho84

I hope you're still interested in SPM! Make sure to join the early access program that starts at the end of this month so that you can get a chance of shaping up the way the game will evolve during the later stages of development.

Well, it's a matter of degree. My interest at present is probably at about 6½ out of 10. I like what I see, but I have some concerns. If it had a race to the moon aspect with all those fascinating real-world space hardware and mission alternatives, my interest would be at a 9½ easily. [:)]


Oh, one other question: I've seen the mention of the full game being in three parts. Does joining in on the early access beta program (at whichever level) mean the person gets all three parts of the game for that price? Or is there an additional charge for the other parts? Or is each part a separate release and the release version requires an extra purchase? I'm not quite clear on how that will work.

I only ask because my gaming dollars are limited at the moment so I have to be as efficient with them as possible. [:)]

In campaign mode the game does have goals. You have a 4 year goal and a longer term 12 year goal. The 4 year goal influences your funding though funding is also reliant on your overall progress. The 12 year goal will be flagship missions and if you fail to achieve these you'll be fired.

One of the key advantages to the new idea is it lets us take the game beyond the moon. In fact 2/3 of the game covers post moon landings. You wouldn't have the Space Shuttle, ISS and all the other cool things that have happened since if we stopped at the moon and in a game where the sole aim is to beat your opponent to the moon you don;t really have much choice.

I understand the desire for the race to space but we think overall we have a game that provides a much wider and deeper experience. It also allows us to introduce missions from many other nations such as the ESA, JAXA and so on.

If there is enough demand we can go back and create a USA vs USSR race to the moon but I think once people have played the game there will be less of a desire to do this as you'll see how limiting it really is.

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

Yes, but what about the hardware? I really want to try building that Soyuz-like General Electric design for Apollo. [;)]

We might add some more missions during the early access program. Personally, I'd love to add every design I find in Encyclopedia Astronautica, but we have to stop at some point [:)]

Cheers,

ORIGINAL: Swedewolf

Im for one like this concept as Im an cousious player, in old Baris I never attempted a moonlanding in the sixties. So I usually won if the oponent failed utterly. Most other occations I was sacked or runner up. With this type of play I can enjoy my love for space related missions and do it in my own pace. But to be frank, I probablygonna buy and play any future aproach on doing a BARIS challenge with this engine. But not before this game had the Mars missions in the 3rd part.

Yeah, in my every barris game i go "real" path - first sputnik, then gagarin. then 2 mas craft, 3 man..and depending on time/rating 4 man - and ultimateyl moon landing.
nothing ahistoricval like directl focusing on 3 man craft and goind directly to moon.

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

In campaign mode the game does have goals. You have a 4 year goal and a longer term 12 year goal. The 4 year goal influences your funding though funding is also reliant on your overall progress. The 12 year goal will be flagship missions and if you fail to achieve these you'll be fired.

One of the key advantages to the new idea is it lets us take the game beyond the moon. In fact 2/3 of the game covers post moon landings. You wouldn't have the Space Shuttle, ISS and all the other cool things that have happened since if we stopped at the moon and in a game where the sole aim is to beat your opponent to the moon you don;t really have much choice.

I understand the desire for the race to space but we think overall we have a game that provides a much wider and deeper experience. It also allows us to introduce missions from many other nations such as the ESA, JAXA and so on.

If there is enough demand we can go back and create a USA vs USSR race to the moon but I think once people have played the game there will be less of a desire to do this as you'll see how limiting it really is.

BARIS had 2 things going for it:

1) The feeling of being able to mix and match components (rockets, boosters, kickers, spacecraft) to create your own a-historical space program.
2) The huge suspense at the end of a turn where you waited to see if the other side was going to trump you and the awful feeling when you see their 2 man ship launch before yours and then get sick as they perform the first docking.

With this it sounds like(and I repeat sounds like)

1) Choose which historical program you are going to use to meet your short and long term goals.
2) Research the components of the historical programs.
3) Roll the safety dice based on reliability stats and watch the historical missions.
4) If a mission screws up you get a message saying (HELLO YOU ARE MISSING YOUR GOALS).
5) All with some eye candy.

I hope this is not it. Is this all?

4) I can get at work without having to play a game, for example. Orbiter and Kerbal give 5).

Anyway, I may be and I hope I am wrong. But definitely a wait and see what the first impressions are like.

Best of luck with it.

Hello Kipper,

ORIGINAL: Kipper

BARIS had 2 things going for it:

1) The feeling of being able to mix and match components (rockets, boosters, kickers, spacecraft) to create your own a-historical space program.

Even though you won't be able to mix and match components like you do in BARIS, you will get plenty of mission configurations in SPM to choose from. The reason we went for this approach is that I wanted the mission animations to properly display the right mission components and we're a bit constrained since we're using a 2D engine.

ORIGINAL: Kipper
2) The huge suspense at the end of a turn where you waited to see if the other side was going to trump you and the awful feeling when you see their 2 man ship launch before yours and then get sick as they perform the first docking.

You will still get suspense, especially if you're getting close to a goals review.

ORIGINAL: Kipper
With this it sounds like(and I repeat sounds like)

1) Choose which historical program you are going to use to meet your short and long term goals.

Some comments about this: the long term goal involves achieving something big (e.g., a manned Moon landing) whereas the short term goals involve achieving a certain amount of prestige by a certain date. How you achieve that prestige is up to you (e.g., few launches of highly risky/rewarding missions, more launches of low-risk/simpler missions, etc). This way, we give you a lot of flexibility on how to play the game without forcing you through a narrow path, provided that you still manage to achieve the long term goal in the end.

ORIGINAL: Kipper
2) Research the components of the historical programs.

While the research of the components is a key part of the game, one of the biggest points in the game is budget management. You need to hire three different types of personnel, which introduces a fixed cost every season. Then you also have to decide which buildings to upgrade (you need to do this in order to hire more personnel, run more concurrent programs, launch missions with bigger boosters, etc), which requires paying an upgrade cost and increasing the fixed costs for your agency. This introduces lots of interesting decisions to make: should I start hiring lots of personnel in order to achieve more faster? If I do, what shall I do with them once I don't need them anymore? Do I upgrade a certain building now or shall I wait until later? Do I spend money by sending an employee to advanced training in order to improve its skills? If I do that, can I live with the fact that it won't be available for assignments during the next three seasons while still paying his salary?

ORIGINAL: Kipper
3) Roll the safety dice based on reliability stats and watch the historical missions.
4) If a mission screws up you get a message saying (HELLO YOU ARE MISSING YOUR GOALS).

The game won't bug you at all if you're missing your goals. You can even miss the target prestige for the short term goal reviews and still get a budget for the next 4 year period (albeit a very small one). However, if you repeateadly fail to hit the short term goals, you will find it increasingly hard to get by with such a low amount of money and eventually fail to achieve the long term goal.

ORIGINAL: Kipper
5) All with some eye candy.

Well, yes, we want the game to look pretty as well [:)]

ORIGINAL: Kipper
I hope this is not it. Is this all?

4) I can get at work without having to play a game, for example. Orbiter and Kerbal give 5).

Anyway, I may be and I hope I am wrong. But definitely a wait and see what the first impressions are like.

Best of luck with it.

If you have an interest in space exploration, I encourage you to join us during the Early Access Program to help us shape the game during the last stages of development. There's a strong desire across the development team to make the product as good as it can be and I, as the designer and only programmer, I'm quite receptive to feedback.

Cheers,

OK, your answer to my point 2) shed some light on the game mechanic that I hadn't seen before, so yes I am beginning to understand more.

If you have an interest in space exploration

Yep, I am privileged to say that I have met 10 of the 12 moonwalkers, among many other astronauts/cosmonauts, including Scott Carpenter twice, of whom I was thinking a lot today. A real gentleman. RIP. Have met Buzz a few times - quite a guy! Looking at a signed photo of him and me right now (signed by him not me LOL).

When is the EAP up and running? I saw the Historicon presentation about the tiers but it said that the program would be open in September?

Best of luck with it. I think quite a few of us are/were wondering what will replace the thrill of the race that was in BARIS.

ORIGINAL: Kipper

Yep, I am privileged to say that I have met 10 of the 12 moonwalkers, among many other astronauts/cosmonauts, including Scott Carpenter twice, of whom I was thinking a lot today. A real gentleman. RIP. Have met Buzz a few times - quite a guy! Looking at a signed photo of him and me right now (signed by him not me LOL).

10 of the 12 moonwalkers? That's awesome! Buzz is a very nice guy. Plus, he really knows his stuff, so listening to what he has to say is extremely interesting.

ORIGINAL: Kipper

When is the EAP up and running? I saw the Historicon presentation about the tiers but it said that the program would be open in September?

It will be out very soon. The content creation took longer than I anticipated and it required quite a lot of involvement from me. Luckily we're nearly done with that now, so I'm able to focus pretty much entirely on the code (minus the day job [:)])

ORIGINAL: Kipper

Best of luck with it. I think quite a few of us are/were wondering what will replace the thrill of the race that was in BARIS.

Thanks, hope to see you in the EAP forums [;)]

Cheers,

Is like waiting for christmas when I was a kid hehe

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

In campaign mode the game does have goals. You have a 4 year goal and a longer term 12 year goal. The 4 year goal influences your funding though funding is also reliant on your overall progress. The 12 year goal will be flagship missions and if you fail to achieve these you'll be fired.

Yes, I understand that. I'm just saying, in and of itself, that does not seem as compelling as compared to also having to match moves with an opponent with similar goals. It just feels rather arbitrary. An AI bureaucrat throws out an arbitrary goal and deadline that you have to meet. I get that the user then has a choice as to how to go about meeting the goal, and there is enjoyability in that, but it just seems to lack a certain tight narrative drive and strategic element (i.e. countering your opponent's moves with moves of your own and/or capitalizing on his failures).

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

One of the key advantages to the new idea is it lets us take the game beyond the moon. In fact 2/3 of the game covers post moon landings. You wouldn't have the Space Shuttle, ISS and all the other cool things that have happened since if we stopped at the moon and in a game where the sole aim is to beat your opponent to the moon you don;t really have much choice.

A fair point. It would be hard for the race element to work there, at least, it wouldn't fit historically.

ORIGINAL: Kipper


BARIS had 2 things going for it:

1) The feeling of being able to mix and match components (rockets, boosters, kickers, spacecraft) to create your own a-historical space program.
2) The huge suspense at the end of a turn where you waited to see if the other side was going to trump you and the awful feeling when you see their 2 man ship launch before yours and then get sick as they perform the first docking.

With this it sounds like(and I repeat sounds like)

1) Choose which historical program you are going to use to meet your short and long term goals.
2) Research the components of the historical programs.
3) Roll the safety dice based on reliability stats and watch the historical missions.
4) If a mission screws up you get a message saying (HELLO YOU ARE MISSING YOUR GOALS).
5) All with some eye candy.

I hope this is not it. Is this all?

Thank you! You neatly summarized what I have been trying to get at all along.

ORIGINAL: Nacho84

You will still get suspense, especially if you're getting close to a goals review.

But that's just not the same. It's not as compelling and engaging. Why? Because seeing an opponent get there first in BARIS meant having to re-examine one's own plans. Should I respond? Should I maybe take a gamble on a big first so I can score some prestige and close the gap? Or should I accelerate smaller programs to score smaller but less risky prestige firsts? Or should I instead stay the course, keep to my long-range plan, and hope the other side runs into trouble? These are the kinds of key strategic elements in a race scenario. And it's these sorts of strategic elements that just don't seem to be present to nearly the same degree in SPM, precisely because it lacks the race element and is more of a 'sandbox' environment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that makes SPM a bad game or anything. It's just that it makes it hard for me personally to see where the drive to go one more turn in SPM will come when it lacks those kinds of strategic pushes. At least, not from simply talking about the game — it's perfectly possible actually playing it is far more engaging in this regard than trying to describe it can adequately capture.

The space competition between USSR and USA continued until 1991 BTW.

I am skeptical but much depends on the execution so let's now wait and give it a chance.