Wondering about RFTS

[CTB123]

I had the original RFTS back on the old C-64. I never picked up the most recent version, mostly due to mediocre reviews at the time. Does anyone have an AAR or game play description that would give me a reasonable feel for the the game? I loved MOOII and enjoyed Galactic Civilizations as well. Space Empires IV tended to be too much work for me. I am trying to figure out if RFTS is for me.
Thanks!
Tony

[Hertston]

Likewise. I'm not the biggest of 4X game fans, but I still play GalCiv on occasion and have played MoO2 & 3 and Imperium Galactica 2 in the past. Can anyone give some reasons why RFTS might be worth my money and time? Is it better than those games, and if so in what respects?

[alexs]

Stay tuned because a demo is in the works

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

Likewise. I'm not the biggest of 4X game fans, but I still play GalCiv on occasion and have played MoO2 & 3 and Imperium Galactica 2 in the past. Can anyone give some reasons why RFTS might be worth my money and time? Is it better than those games, and if so in what respects?

I'll give you my honest opinion. I really wanted to like the game when it came out. But compared to others of it's genre it seemed very limiting:

1) Diplomacy was very limited. You can make treaties (peace, war, alliance, etc). And you can allow other races to enter your territory (I think), and you can coordinate economic restrictions/sanctions on trade with an friendly nation vs. an enemy. But there are none of the standard diplomatic choices as in most of the genre: technology trading, trading systems, spying, threatening war, making demands, etc. Diplomacy is very bland and honestly very disappointing.

I'm not sure what SSG was thinking here - RFTS came out AFTER MOO1/MOO2 and Civ1/Civ2 and yet had more limited diplomacy than either of those games. It seemed like a giant step backwards to me.

2) Technology suffers from blandness also. There just seemed to be rather generic missile/beam/engine/shield techs, with ship types, and a few economic or research boosting techs at each tech level. Just very little I ever got excited about or felt like I had to get - unlike some other 4X games I played. Nothing seemed all that crucial, at least to me.

3) Combat - I think there was more going on here, but I could never "grok" the tactical subtleties. Beams vs. missiles, shields, range, ship sheed, "inner" formation vs. "outer" formation all came into play, but how I never was exactly sure how. (It would be nice if someone elaborated on tactical combat for those of us who don't get it).

I think another problem with combat was tied to ROF, Rate of Fire. This was a racial characteristic and this seemed to be perhaps the most dominating factor in combat. So if you choose a race with a low ROF, it was very difficult to overcome.

4) I liked graphics and I like the interface. And the fact that the map wrapped around was cool too. And there is a good mix of races too. And there is a comprehensive editor included.

Overall, like I said, I wanted to like this game. But rather than playing like a true 4X game, it played more like a wargame to me. I think the best, fairest and most accurate review was the one I saw on Gamespot by Bruce Geryk, I think. Check that one out.

It's not a bad game. It's just that I had always loved everything SSG had put out, and I thought they would take the 4X space game to a new level. But to me it was not only did they not take the game to a new level, but some areas definitely seemed like steps backwards.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yeah, I agree with Grifman on a number of points.

The game is well done, but not extremely immersive.

Honestly, I think a lot of the 'problem' is a complete lack of info and feedback. Its hard to see what is doing what in combat so its difficult to determine if your designs and tech choices are working or not.

Is it worth it to research better Drives? How much better? Same with Shields, and Anti-missiles etc. Since the info/feedback is so spotty, it doesnt seem to matter as much what you research or how you design the ships. I'm sure it DOES matter, but its hard to see 'pay-off' when everything is so 'black box'.

I, for one, would like to see more info on enemy classes. You should get info just for fighthing them even if you dont destroy them. I'd also like to see more info on what determined the range each round. Info on Drives for enemy ships (and friendly one!) as well as total task force 'agility' would be good to see.

At any rate, I enjoy the game enough at the moment to want to keep playing. Its fast and you get resolution fairly quickly. I dont consider it a true 4x game, but it seems to be (as Grifman mentioned), a wargame in space.

[Cmdrcain]

"I'm not sure what SSG was thinking here - RFTS came out AFTER MOO1/MOO2 and Civ1/Civ2 and yet had more limited diplomacy than either of those games. It seemed like a giant step backwards to me."


I think your Incorrect, RFTS originally came out back when you had XT's, 286,386, into the 486 times and also C-64.

The one Matrix offers is an remake of the original,
so the remake applys, but the original doesnt, and the 2000 version basically was to improve the originals concept keeping as much to original, so as original didn't have diplomacy like in MOO, the 2000 remake didn't consider expanding on it.

The remake was more of a Graphics upgrade..

[willgamer]

Whoa... you guy's are tough...[8|]

I won't repeat Grif and Joe's points since I mostly agree with them. However, if you'd given letter grades they seem to be C's & D's. I see then same facts but would hand out B's and C's. I especially concur though that more info would be wonderful about the mechanics of combat...

Matrix: are there any archieved SSG threads that have that info?

Some things I consider pluses that haven't been mentioned: Hyperspace travel rules that commit a fleet, moving more than 1 jump, without recall; the flip side is (default option) achieving operational surprise since the defender can't know you're coming; best simulation of the Weberverse (mentioned in another thread); tough ai, especially in the campaigns (doubly so if you don't read the walkthru); scenarios that can usually be played in a single evening; two campaigns and 22 standalone scenarios in addition to random.

For me, the glass is (over) half full, a game I will play for pennies/hour by the time I'm done for $20.

A satisfied customer. [:)]

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

Whoa... you guy's are tough...[8|]

I won't repeat Grif and Joe's points since I mostly agree with them. However, if you'd given letter grades they seem to be C's & D's. I see then same facts but would hand out B's and C's. I especially concur though that more info would be wonderful about the mechanics of combat...

Matrix: are there any archieved SSG threads that have that info?

Some things I consider pluses that haven't been mentioned: Hyperspace travel rules that commit a fleet, moving more than 1 jump, without recall; the flip side is (default option) achieving operational surprise since the defender can't know you're coming; best simulation of the Weberverse (mentioned in another thread); tough ai, especially in the campaigns (doubly so if you don't read the walkthru); scenarios that can usually be played in a single evening; two campaigns and 22 standalone scenarios in addition to random.

For me, the glass is (over) half full, a game I will play for pennies/hour by the time I'm done for $20.

A satisfied customer. [:)]

Matrix simply fixed some things in the RFTS 2000 version, so if one wanted more info on the game I'd look to google for RFTS and look up stuff on SSG's sites and user sites that maybe out there for the version Matrix re-released which was released in early 2000 by SSG.

Like when Matrix put out bug fixed versions of Pacific War and war in Russia, while there has been plenty posted here, theres a wealth of user sites still out there with hints and tips, etc.

Just need look around

For $20 its worth it, I have the original RFTS
the c-64 version and also the IBM version but the IBM version (1980's) will not run with XP...
it loads but the graphics don't come through right...They used EGA for the ibm original version, the later ssg remake that matrix spiffed out and is offering was done after w95/98 were out so runs well with XP.

[rekab]

Hi,

I have the 2000 game and it is in the wargame mode of 4X's.

I have only just found the re-release and will play the game again, I will have to as the save games may not work [;)]

Despite what others have said, you do often know where and when you will be attacked, with the right upgrades.

Do save as you go!!!!!

For $19.99 this is well worth the money, just try and work out the best attack and defence after a small action against a enemy, get it wrong and the size of your fleet will not save you.

Enjoy, I do.

--Bob

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

"I'm not sure what SSG was thinking here - RFTS came out AFTER MOO1/MOO2 and Civ1/Civ2 and yet had more limited diplomacy than either of those games. It seemed like a giant step backwards to me."


I think your Incorrect, RFTS originally came out back when you had XT's, 286,386, into the 486 times and also C-64.

The one Matrix offers isnt a remake of the original,but a later revision
so the remake was in the Moo etc times, but the original isn't, and the 2000 version basically was to improve the originals concept keeping as much to original, so as original didn't have diplomacy like in MOO, the 2000 remake didn't consider expanding on it.

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

"I'm not sure what SSG was thinking here - RFTS came out AFTER MOO1/MOO2 and Civ1/Civ2 and yet had more limited diplomacy than either of those games. It seemed like a giant step backwards to me."


I think your Incorrect, RFTS originally came out back when you had XT's, 286,386, into the 486 times and also C-64.

No, you are incorrect. We are talking about THIS incarnation of RFTS, not the original. This version came out after MOO1/2. The questioner was asking about this version, NOT the older version.

The one Matrix offers is an remake of the original,
so the remake applys, but the original doesnt, and the 2000 version basically was to improve the originals concept keeping as much to original, so as original didn't have diplomacy like in MOO, the 2000 remake didn't consider expanding on it.

Well, as I pointed out, I considered that a mistake. Remake or not, it was a mistake to put out a game with more limited options than other competing titles that came out earlier. My point still stands. Someone wanted to know how it matched up with MOO/Gal Civ and my statement is correct - it lacks basic options those games have.

The remake was more of a Graphics upgrade..

Irrelevant given the question asked.

[CTB123]

For what its worth, I'm not terribly interested in diplomacy in these types of games. It often seems to fake or inconsistent. Just give me the possibility of peacefully co-existing. Otherwise, I spend all my time this type of game dealing with the economy and war.
Tony

[madgamer2]

OK......for my money I would say pay the $20 bucks and buy the game. For that price you will get your money's worth. As has been stated elsewhere in this thread RFTS WAS the original 4X game, it really started it all.
Ther version for the C64 and the Atari were slightly different than the Apple GS that I played. RTFS was one of only games that ran on the GS in 16 bits. The IBM version that came later and was IMO the most ugly game I have ever seen.
The game was fun, easy to play and had a great AI. All 4X games owe there existance to this game. When the 2000 release came it had nice graphics but something was lost from the first version. They did not update it so much as they expanded it. The 1.41 version looks and plays like my 1.21 version and I still like it.
The combat part of the game is a paper, scissors, rock kind of thing and can be a frustrating experience. Because each race has its own requirements
for landing on a planet its possible to have several of them in one system. One interesting thing is to play a game where all the players are the same race.
So all in all it is a great game but for my money the Apple version all thoes years ago was the best. I am glad they saved it however, as it is one I play still. Now if I just had that old Apple GS....Ah well
Madgamer