FreeOrion

Zpock wrote:

It makes gameplay easy to write, but expecting solar systems to only have ONE colonizable planet is absurd.

Gameplay wise, if there is multiple colonies in the same place, that would mean layering = bad. Easier to get an overview if all colonies are in different places on the starmap then stacked together I think. If one colonizable planet is absurd or not is a highly subjective realism argument. I could just as easily say it's absurd to assume a star system has ANY colonizable planets. But those can be abstracted out of the starmap altogether, say just interesting stars are displayed at all. Or that 2 colonizable planets is highly unlikely in the same system. Judging from out own solar system.

You COULD have multiple planets/starsystems on top of each other in a stars! style game, but it would mess with the starmap overlays I think.

I think you're reading a bit too much into it.... Expecting all habitable planets to be terran is how many games ended up with the one planet model..... The truth is that we don't have enough information to be able to make a realistic conclusion. Any conclusions we amke will be based on partial flawed information. BTW by 4X standards our solar system would have a total of 8!! habitable planets/moons.

I agree and that was the kind of point I was trying to make, that it is hard to say what is realistic and not in this case. I have concluded that all realism arguments that come up relating to science fiction can be very easily countered with another realism argument. Except for silly stuff like argueing about the realism of shooting pink bunnies out of your guns and things like that.

Anyways I do not believe realism arguments are worth thinking or argueing over. Gameplay wise I don't think there is much difference in the strategic properties of having a single extra juicy planet as opposed to a star system with multiple lesser planets. So it is better to handle the separate solar system as a single unit like stars! does. This cuts down on micromanagment, makes handling information easier with no significiant loss of strategic depth opposed to having multiple separate colonies in one system.

Zpock wrote:Gameplay wise I don't think there is much difference in the strategic properties of having a single extra juicy planet as opposed to a star system with multiple lesser planets. So it is better to handle the separate solar system as a single unit like stars! does. This cuts down on micromanagment, makes handling information easier with no significiant loss of strategic depth opposed to having multiple separate colonies in one system.

This is largely dependant on the map type. Single planets works well with the map Stars! uses. But it would be horrible with the map type that the SE games use.

This is largely dependant on the map type. Single planets works well with the map Stars! uses. But it would be horrible with the map type that the SE games use.

Yes this is true. The stars! map is a single layered one while the SE series uses a dual layered map with heavy emphasis on the solar system layer. I prefer the stars! single layer system however. You can never look at the whole galaxy in SE and get a clear view of the big picture like in stars!.

Ironically, I think the stars map also feels the most like it was real space, excellent immersion. It had a very scientific feel to it and didn't have proportion problems. The little dots made a great job in place of having pretty graphics of stars that just seem horribly out of scale.

FWIW i think BOTF got the balance just about right with regard to modelling solar systems. Multiple planets in each system, but with economics and building still done at a system level rather than planet by planet.

So you can initially colonise just the terran planets in a system, then terraform the other planets, which increases your maximum population etc in the system. Probably the optimum balance between ease of use and interesting solar systems.

Obviously in FO since different races prefer different environments then you would also have the option of filling planets with different species instead of terraforming, but it would probably work just as well overall.

Daveybaby wrote:FWIW i think BOTF got the balance just about right with regard to modelling solar systems. Multiple planets in each system, but with economics and building still done at a system level rather than planet by planet.

I gotta say that was one of the best parts of the game. FO does have something very close though, and without all the Micro that BotF had.

So who else seems to think Sword of the Stars should get added now?

And sins of a Solar Empire too. I think they're both out about the same time.
And Stars! Supernova Genesis should probably be removed from "in the making" as it seems to have died completely, unfortunately

Welcome to the Land of Awesome:

4X in space:
http://www.the-underdogs.info/genre.php ... in%20space

4X on land:
http://www.the-underdogs.info/genre.php ... on%20Earth

Underdogs is made from the pure essence of Good.

han_krum wrote:Anacreon: Reconstrucion

http://www.neurohack.com/anacreon/index.html
http://blake.prohosting.com/~tjpete/anacreon.html
http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=55

Anacreon is one of the best ever. A good example of how giving the player access to complex macros (aka the ability to program a basic AI for his own empire) can really work.

Id love for FO to go a similar route. Even if people want to move fleets by hand, the ability to whip up some simple macros can take interesting complexities and make them GOOD.

(Bugger, double post: sorry. Wasn't paying attention to my threads).

I'm not sure if this actually counts as 4x (well, in fact i'm positive it doesnt), but this game is basically the Moo/FO concept stripped down as far as it can go - GalCon. Games typically last 1 or 2 minutes maximum.

I've actually found it quite instructive - if you play the demo for a while you will realise that the winner is usually determined in the first 10-20 seconds, and its just mopping up after that - it really illustrates how important it is to have methods to inhibit this in 4x games.

Don't forget to add sword of the stars to the list...

Lost Empire - A recently release space 4x game that is not well heard of.
http://www.polluxgamelabs.com/lostempire/

Sins Of A Solar Empire - More of an RTS than a 4X game, but sounds like it would be awesome, beta is out which you can play if you preorder the game.
http://sins.stardock.com

Zanzibar wrote:Don't forget to add sword of the stars to the list...

Also the "born of blood" expansion.
How many 4x games actually have expansions come to think of it? I can't think of any. Sequals yes, but not expansions.

Moriarty wrote:How many 4x games actually have expansions come to think of it? I can't think of any. Sequals yes, but not expansions.

Alpha Centauri had the Alien Crossfire expansion. Which made a great game better, and a bit more balanced.