What's the optimal galaxy size?

[zebanovich]

Since there are 8 playable factions, what's the optimal galaxy size for 8 players in total?

There seem to be max. 20 players, which seems to correspond to 2K stars.
Therefore is it correct to say that for 8 players max 1K stars is optimal?

Is the limit of 20 players due to 2K stars limit?

[Jorgen_CAB]

I would say there are NO optimal galaxy size, this is quite individual to how you like to play.

In pretty much ALL the game I played so far I had max size galaxy and ten opponents (I would even go bigger if I could, my PC can handle it). I also choose exactly what those opponents would be, what technology they start at and how much they expanded. Myself I always start in Pre-warp. I always have fair amount of bad guys in the game such as Boskarans.

As the story of the galaxy is what it is, there are no reason why there can't be several empires of the same race out there.

When playing Distant Worlds I NEVER play the sandbox mode where everyone start at Pre-Warp, that just feel too gamey for me as that is soo highly unlikely to ever happen, story wise. Sure you can concoct any story to fit anything, but I don't like it.

I also don't view the game as something I have to beat, I just want to play the story and simply play. If there is some super strong opponent I just have to say away from 99% of the game, that is no problem for me. I will just have to use diplomacy to "fix" that problem.

Soo... in short words... there is no "optimal" galaxy size or number of opponents. It all depends how you like to play. I would like a few more major races to inhabit my games, but the ones we have will have to make due for now.

The 20 player limit seem a bit artificial, I agree, but that is only for starting empires... not limited in the actual game as far as I know. Independent colonies can and often will grow into empires after a while.

[zebanovich]

I would say there are NO optimal galaxy size, this is quite individual to how you like to play.

In pretty much ALL the game I played so far I had max size galaxy and ten opponents (I would even go bigger if I could, my PC can handle it). I also choose exactly what those opponents would be, what technology they start at and how much they expanded. Myself I always start in Pre-warp. I always have fair amount of bad guys in the game such as Boskarans.

10 players on 2K galaxy sounds like a lot of early game spent on colonization and expansion.
You're right therefore it's personal preference, I prefer more players but I don't know yet how much since I played the game only once, I'm now starting a 2nd one.

When playing Distant Worlds I NEVER play the sandbox mode where everyone start at Pre-Warp, that just feel too gamey for me as that is soo highly unlikely to ever happen, story wise. Sure you can concoct any story to fit anything, but I don't like it.

I also don't view the game as something I have to beat, I just want to play the story and simply play. If there is some super strong opponent I just have to say away from 99% of the game, that is no problem for me. I will just have to use diplomacy to "fix" that problem.

Very interesting, it sounds realistic that not everybody starts with same level.

But I prefer that everybody starts with same conditions because stronger AI will have no issue taking over weaker ones and then you have a problem because you'll be chasing them for the rest of game trying to catch up.

It's good only if strong AI doesn't start next to you to give you time to catch up, this reminds me of "advanced AI" in stellaris but there you could choose so that they don't start next to you.

[Nightskies]

Strictly speaking, optimal would be the smallest (4x4), if considering performance and novelty of experiencing the game. Otherwise, largest (10x10) is optimal in consideration of potential magnitude. Otherwise the size only impacts how long you'll be doing whatever it is you do for the empire, and the likelihood of endgame techs mattering.

"But I prefer that everybody starts with same conditions because stronger AI will have no issue taking over weaker ones and then you have a problem because you'll be chasing them for the rest of game trying to catch up."

Okay, but an experienced player should be able to crush the AI beneath their feet even if the AI has a sizable advantage in tech and economy, depending on how the player plays. That's assuming the player doesn't follow the AI's behavior much. I recommend playing with different advantages (and all should have advantages over the player across the board) for the other empires at least: some bigger, some with more tech, some with more space to claim for themselves.

Just don't start with a big empire next to yours if you're pre-warp. Friendly or not, it'll take up everything around you before you have a chance.

[Jorgen_CAB]

To be honest, I have had relatively little issues with bigger AI empires taking over smaller ones. As there are plenty of space to expand most empire become advanced fast enough that just taking them over is a challenge, even for stronger AI. The other point is alliances... I often use diplomacy to help weaker AI against stronger AI. Manage defensive pacts to withstand the stronger AI in the game actually do work.

I also so far had very little problem to even fend of a large neighbour that was much stronger than me... just pump them with diplomatic clout until they cave in and agree to a none aggression pact... you then start forming defensive pacts and alliances with the other weaker AI.

You just have to be a bit more constructive in how you approach the problem. Once you have strong allies and you built up your economy and fleet enough you can get that big war with a strong AI. To me this is more fun... playing against an AI that start at equal footing is not really much of a challenge, no AI can beat a dedicated human player with decent knowledge of the game mechanics, that is just a fact.

Since everyone like to play the game so differently it is pretty hard to find a perfect fit that you can say are the "optimal" setup or environment.

My goal when playing distant world is to find out the story of the galaxy... there is no real way to "win". I simply play until I have seen enough of the story and are satisfied with it. I just wish that diplomacy was a stronger mechanic in the game.

Treating the game as a contest is not really fun for me...

[zebanovich]

I'm more concerned on optimal balance between galaxy size vs count of players.

ie. optimal count of players for 2K starts and optimal count of players for 500 stars.
that is how many stars per player is optimal.

ex. formula, 100 stars per player if optimal means to play 1K stars galaxy you set up 10 players.

[WiZz]

I'd say around 700-1000. The game has some progressing UI and performance issues on larger galaxies.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'm more concerned on optimal balance between galaxy size vs count of players.

ie. optimal count of players for 2K starts and optimal count of players for 500 stars.
that is how many stars per player is optimal.

ex. formula, 100 stars per player if optimal means to play 1K stars galaxy you set up 10 players.

To be honest... how do you define "optimal" number of players?!?

I find me and ten to twelve other starting empires a good fit on the biggest map settings, some will want a galaxy crammed with empires and will choose the maximum of 20.

[zebanovich]

OK, personal preference play a role, but I would define it as having enough space to expand but avoiding very early wars and avoiding too much starting time spent on colonization.

[Jorgen_CAB]

OK, personal preference play a role, but I would define it as having enough space to expand but avoiding very early wars and avoiding too much starting time spent on colonization.

I don't want to be THAT guy... but I still think this is very subjective. Space to grow and time to expand... how do we define this... it is also very tied to the shape of the galaxy etc..?!?

Can we really describe in years or some time what is "optimal" before we encounter someone else on average or when we will rub our borders against each other?

Whatever we decide as "optimal" will just be an arbitrary number based on subjective preferences... sorry to say but that is just what it is.

I think it is better use of time to describe what you think is the "optimal" feeling and setting and then we can discuss what other people thinks about that or what they think. Perhaps there is some general consensus around galaxy size, number of stars, distribution of empires etc...

I think that few but strong pirates, 10-12 young to established expanded empires at a mix of tech level 1 & 2 with very slow tech progression, spiral galaxy with dense nebula in a max size and number of planets, playing on Hard or worse is a good challenge and optimal gameplay. It leaves room for expansion but also make the AI factions and pirates interesting for a long time when you encounter them. The AI ahead in tech and expansion combined with slow tech progression is key in my opinion.

Obviously I start as a Pre-Warp empire at Hard or worse difficulty.

What do you think is optimal from your experience?

[Wenla]

Classic answer: it depends...

[OrnluWolfjarl]

I have a mental list based on how long I want the game to be.

Short game - small galaxy = 30-50 stars per player

Average game - medium galaxy = 50-100 stars per player

Long game - big galaxy = 100-200 stars per player.

Very long game - huge galaxy = 200+ stars per player

Also, colony availability and independent colony rarity will affect the length of the game in possibly unpredictable ways.

I usually adjust my starting level (and AI empires levels) according to the length I want to play.

For example, for Long and Very Long games, I will start at Pre-Warp and place all the AI empires at variable tech levels (starting from level 3 as a minimum).

For Short and Medium games, I will start at level 1-2, and have AI empires start between level 2-4.