Chess?
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:06 am
Okay, okay, so I bought into the several comments that have been made here that this game is more similar to chess than other strategy games (moo2, galciv, etc.) and then I purchased the game the other night. Having now played several games (none of which I have finished because I don't autosave and end up with CDT before I can conquer the entire map), I really don't see where there is much in common with chess.
I think the game is entertaining, yet the strategic depth of chess is nowhere to be found here. In chess, for example, a player who is outmanned can still win the game or acheive a stalemate with superior strategy. That simply is not possible here, because once your opponent captures more planets than you have, it's over. The resource machine grinds on and unless your opponent is a numbskull you're doomed to follow in the footsteps of Japan in WW2... you lose regardless of what you do because your opponent can simply produce you to death. (Actually the real problem is that so far I have always been on the winning side and it becomes painfully obvious what the eventual outcome will be!)
There are facets of the game that could be intriguing, the technology gains from spaceports for example, yet they lose their potency when everyone has access to the same technologies regardless of their commander/race selection. Go with cloaked ships?... Counter available. Superior firepower... no problem. I just don't see anything that prevents the game from becoming a race for resources in the end, which means this game is nothing like chess.
Is it fun? Well, so far it holds my interest, but I have doubts about the long-term (meaning longer than 10 hours). I hope to heaven the promise of a map editor comes true because without that any hope for long-term interest is doomed. Of course it's possible I'm missing the real strategic depth the game has to offer, if so I hope others can step forward to correct my initial observations. Here we lack even a fog of war, which I just don't understand because it really puts everything right up front and takes any hope of surprise away. You pretty much know how things will turn out after one side obtains the resource advantage because it's impossible (well, practically impossible anyway) for a stealth invasion or anything of that sort to occur to bring things back into balance. It pretty much becomes a set-piece war of attrition.
Anyway, I hope I'm wrong. Correct me, ... please!
I think the game is entertaining, yet the strategic depth of chess is nowhere to be found here. In chess, for example, a player who is outmanned can still win the game or acheive a stalemate with superior strategy. That simply is not possible here, because once your opponent captures more planets than you have, it's over. The resource machine grinds on and unless your opponent is a numbskull you're doomed to follow in the footsteps of Japan in WW2... you lose regardless of what you do because your opponent can simply produce you to death. (Actually the real problem is that so far I have always been on the winning side and it becomes painfully obvious what the eventual outcome will be!)
There are facets of the game that could be intriguing, the technology gains from spaceports for example, yet they lose their potency when everyone has access to the same technologies regardless of their commander/race selection. Go with cloaked ships?... Counter available. Superior firepower... no problem. I just don't see anything that prevents the game from becoming a race for resources in the end, which means this game is nothing like chess.
Is it fun? Well, so far it holds my interest, but I have doubts about the long-term (meaning longer than 10 hours). I hope to heaven the promise of a map editor comes true because without that any hope for long-term interest is doomed. Of course it's possible I'm missing the real strategic depth the game has to offer, if so I hope others can step forward to correct my initial observations. Here we lack even a fog of war, which I just don't understand because it really puts everything right up front and takes any hope of surprise away. You pretty much know how things will turn out after one side obtains the resource advantage because it's impossible (well, practically impossible anyway) for a stealth invasion or anything of that sort to occur to bring things back into balance. It pretty much becomes a set-piece war of attrition.
Anyway, I hope I'm wrong. Correct me, ... please!
