Polaris Sector

[Hattori Hanzo]

ORIGINAL: Lucian

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

You've never driven in London, have you?

lol, I actually have. Its a perfect example of how starlanes force a space game to mimic land-based movement and strategy. The last thing I want in my epic space game is a poor RISK clone.

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo

your use of one of the worst of them (RISK) as a "yardstick" do not necessarily mean that every game with such a movement system is automatically rubbish.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm fine with roads, choke points and mountains in a LAND-BASED game. I just dont want them being force-fed into my epic SPACE strategy game. When I play a land game I want to experience land strategy. But when I play a space game I want to be challenged by strategic situations that are consistent with a space environment.

dear Lucian, what I really mean is that: as we are on the glorious Matrix forum [that is one of the better wargame and strategy game site on the web) a mediocre family game with a bland strategy theme as Risk in fact is, would simply NOT ALLOWED inside any discussion.

I will really appreciate if you use a REAL wargame or strategy game to make comparisons [;)]

[Hattori Hanzo]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo
your use of one of the worst of them (RISK) as a "yardstick" do not necessarily mean that every game with such a movement system is automatically rubbish.

Now now, be fair. For its time, Risk was actually quite good. It was released in 1957 (French version), and again in 1959 (English).

despite the fact that is a 50's game it is absolutely not a wargame nor a real stratey game and would not be allowed here [:-]

"Tactics" pubblished in 1954 by Avalon Hill with his brother "Tactics II" and "Gettysburg" both pubblished in 1958 again by Avalon Hill are of the same historical game period of Risk but clearly not of the same family of games.. [:D]

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31766/tactics

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1574/tactics-ii

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3099/gettysburg

they are obviously obsolete now, but they were the REAL ancestors of the wargames and strategy games that we love [&o] [:)]

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo

they are obviously obsolete now, but they were the REAL ancestors of the wargames and strategy games that we love [&o] [:)]

I actually got banned from a gaming club because I actually read the rules. I looked for the holes, then rogered them [ edited - no politics please ]. The more complex your rule set is, the more likely you've created some loopholes which some imaginative nerd can point to and ruin the game. Risk is simple, and the holes were pretty much ironed out in short order.

But I think the question over space lanes comes down to this: IT'S EASY. Free movement like in DW is HARD. Coding the AI is a pain, since there are no choke points and one's "border sentry force" can't just sit there. Granted that DW's implementation of the AI is a bit crap - but Elliot gave it a good try and it's improved with every iteration. The PS designer probably looked at it and tried to explain it to the suits that the team would need to budget in an extra $300k for game AI specialists. Or just use space lanes and reduce that to a quarter.

You can argue either way what's "realistic". To me, space lanes are BORING. The whole game feels uninspired and mediocre.

[Osito]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

But I think the question over space lanes comes down to this: IT'S EASY. Free movement like in DW is HARD. Coding the AI is a pain, since there are no choke points and one's "border sentry force" can't just sit there. Granted that DW's implementation of the AI is a bit crap - but Elliot gave it a good try and it's improved with every iteration. The PS designer probably looked at it and tried to explain it to the suits that the team would need to budget in an extra $300k for game AI specialists. Or just use space lanes and reduce that to a quarter.

You can argue either way what's "realistic". To me, space lanes are BORING. The whole game feels uninspired and mediocre.

Incidentally, in my own post above, I wasn't attempting to argue space lanes are realistic, simply that it isn't necessarily unrealistic to have them.

I'd agree with you that if space lanes are the only means of travel in a space game, then that probably is down to the difficulty of programming the alternative. It shouldn't be an excuse though, because free travel is clearly doable.

Oddly enough, with Polaris Sector, I understand there are techs later in the game that avoid the need to use the star lanes, but I don't know exactly how they work, because I got bored with the other aspects of the game before I reached that point. It wasn't the star lanes that put me off, either.

Edit: I like the way star lanes are implemented in the new MoO, because you can build jump gates later, which add much more flexibility. Still not free movement though, and in any event you probably have to install the dreaded 'S' word to play it, which is clearly not gonna happen!
Osito

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Osito

The problem with your view is that nobody really knows what is consistent with a space environment. Based on current knowledge all we know is that it would take at least 4 years to get to the nearest star, and tens of thousands of years to get to the other side of our own galaxy. And that's assuming we have an engineering solution to the problem of accelerating a large object close to the speed of light.

Minor whinge:
1. "it would take at least 4 years to get to the nearest star"
If you're measuring time by that of people on Earth, it would take a LOT longer. That's AT the speed of light. The stresses of acceleration rather limit how much we can accelerate. Oh, and decelerate. Unless one's goal is to smack into their sun.
2. If you're talking where it's exactly opposite us (about the centre) and then to the "edge" (arbitrary) - it would require going through a super-massive black hole. Unless we can suss out a way to deal with this, a detour (longer trip) is advisable.
3. "And that's assuming we have an engineering solution to the problem of accelerating a large object close to the speed of light."
I think the most promising idea I've read about required a direct matter-energy conversion of a mass about that of Jupiter. Probably not feasible.

But how long ago was it that we thought the Earth was flat, flight - even that of divinely powered angels - required wings, and fire was the pinnacle of power generation? We can't imagine what we might learn in the next few centuries.

Ya, it's a whinge. The dryer isn't finished and I'm bored.

[Osito]

Ah, well, if we're all having a dryer isn't finished whinge, then:

1. True, hence the lawyer language (more specifically patent attorney language) 'at least' which covers everything from 4 to infinity.

2. Again the expression 'tens of thousands' covers the direct route and the detour.

3. I do think that eventually there will be an engineering solution to this problem. It's not like there are physicists saying its impossible based on our current understanding of physics.

So far as your penultimate paragraph is concerned, it would be hard to argue with that. So we're in agreement. Apart from the places we disagree - if there are any.

Perhaps if the dryer's done, there'll be greater harmony.

Osito

[Lucian]

ORIGINAL: Osito

The problem with your view is that nobody really knows what is consistent with a space environment.

Osito

Except that I'm not really arguing from a "realism" perspective, I'm arguing from an "I dont want to play another boring land game disguised as a space game" perspective. I dont care what's realistic, I only care about my space strategy game NOT being exactly like a dumbed-down RISK game. If I want to play RISK, I'll play RISK, just dont force it into my epic space strategy game.

ORIGINAL: Osito

Out of interest, what do you think of the new MoO system which has star lanes that are upgradable with buildable jump stations that allow you to connect any two stars?

Yeah I'm not a fan. You could build jump gates in late-game MOO 2 as well and were not crippled in the early game by starlanes so IMO MOO 2 was a far superior game with all of the pros and none of the cons. I think they made a huge mistake going with forced starlanes in MOO 4 and I really hope they pay a large financial penalty for it.

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo

I will really appreciate if you use a REAL wargame or strategy game to make comparisons.

I'm actually not a RISK hater, I appreciate it for what it is, a simplistic land-strategy game. I just dont want to see it cloned and forced into my space games with no option to avoid.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

But I think the question over space lanes comes down to this: IT'S EASY. Free movement like in DW is HARD. Coding the AI is a pain, since there are no choke points and one's "border sentry force" can't just sit there. Granted that DW's implementation of the AI is a bit crap - but Elliot gave it a good try and it's improved with every iteration. The PS designer probably looked at it and tried to explain it to the suits that the team would need to budget in an extra $300k for game AI specialists. Or just use space lanes and reduce that to a quarter.

You can argue either way what's "realistic". To me, space lanes are BORING. The whole game feels uninspired and mediocre.

Exactly!! Strategy games are supposed to make you think and starlanes just dumb everything down to "defend the choke point with your stack of death". Boring!

[Osito]

ORIGINAL: Lucian

ORIGINAL: Osito

The problem with your view is that nobody really knows what is consistent with a space environment.

Osito

Except that I'm not really arguing from a "realism" perspective, I'm arguing from an "I dont want to play another boring land game disguised as a space game" perspective. I dont care what's realistic, I only care about my space strategy game NOT being exactly like a dumbed-down RISK game. If I want to play RISK, I'll play RISK, just dont force it into my epic space strategy game.

Well, fair enough, but I was quoting your own words 'consistent with a space environment'.

ORIGINAL: Lucian
Exactly!! Strategy games are supposed to make you think and starlanes just dumb everything down to "defend the choke point with your stack of death". Boring!

Hey, careful with the 'dumb down' stuff, we're not on Steam now you know

As I've said, we all have our preferences (and I personally prefer free movement, or even a mixture of movement possibilities), but that doesn't mean one system - from a gameplay point of view - is intrinsically superior to another. One of the problems with some implementations of free movement is they entail a 'range' system (which is, of course, thematically justified), as in the original MoO. I'm not sure if this is present in Stellaris, but it wouldn't surprise me, if it were. Ironically Polaris sector has star lanes and a range limitation, which to my mind is a bit of a double whammy. DW dealt with the problem quite well, by allowing you to exceed your range at a much slower speed.

I've played a few space games with star lanes that I didn't much like, Polaris Sector being one example. But on the other hand I have found the new MoO to be great fun, despite the star lanes. The jump gates come quite early in the tech tree, and I can say that you're certainly not crippled by the star lanes in new MoO - at least no more than you were crippled by early game fuel limitations in the original game.

Osito

[Lucian]

ORIGINAL: Osito

Well, fair enough, but I was quoting your own words 'consistent with a space environment'.

Yes, probably a poor choice of words on my part, I really dont care about realism. There are about a million interesting ways that FTL space travel *might* eventually pan out. Selecting "Bad RISK" as the method of choice for your epic space game is about as boring, uninspired and simplistic as you can possibly get.

ORIGINAL: Osito

I've played a few space games with star lanes that I didn't much like, Polaris Sector being one example. But on the other hand I have found the new MoO to be great fun, despite the star lanes. The jump gates come quite early in the tech tree, and I can say that you're certainly not crippled by the star lanes in new MoO - at least no more than you were crippled by early game fuel limitations in the original game.

Yes but early game fuel limitations are soon lifted by early game fuel tech advances whereas the fixed starlane roadmap is always fixed and static. Big difference. Starlane restrictions are lifted by jump gates but travel is still woefully slow if reports are to be believed.

And speaking of slow in MOO 4, do you like taking 35+ turns to cross the galaxy due to the design where you have to stop and cross every single system? Do you like that space travel is so ridiculously slow that by the time your ships get to the front lines they are already obsolete? These are all major (and valid) complaints on the MOO forums expressed by many players. Seriously man, its a horrible, broken design and I really hope they have the resources left to make some significant changes in EA or the game is doomed to mediocrity.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Osito

1. True, hence the lawyer language (more specifically patent attorney language) 'at least' which covers everything from 4 to infinity.

2. Again the expression 'tens of thousands' covers the direct route and the detour.

The weasel-word-fu is strong in this one! I need more laps around the swamp, carrying you on my (virtual) back.

ORIGINAL: Osito
3. I do think that eventually there will be an engineering solution to this problem. It's not like there are physicists saying its impossible based on our current understanding of physics.

I think the only thing absolutely impossible in physics these days is: regular and sufficient funding. Think what we could have found out, were the F-35 budget dropped into fusion research.

[Osito]

Double post -sorry.

[Osito]

ORIGINAL: Lucian

And speaking of slow in MOO 4, do you like taking 35+ turns to cross the galaxy due to the design where you have to stop and cross every single system? Do you like that space travel is so ridiculously slow that by the time your ships get to the front lines they are already obsolete? These are all major (and valid) complaints on the MOO forums expressed by many players. Seriously man, its a horrible, broken design and I really hope they have the resources left to make some significant changes in EA or the game is doomed to mediocrity.

Ok, we're going a bit OT, and it's my fault, so someone will probably come along and shut me up in a minute. In the meantime, in response to your comments:

I haven't tried it, but I don't think you have to spend 35 turns to go across the galaxy (someone correct me if I'm wrong). What you have to do is to build a jump gate at each end of the galaxy and use that. I'm pretty sure that with the later engine tech, you can get across using jump gates in fewer than 35 turns. If not, then I'd say the ship speed needs tweaking. It's quite an interesting mechanic to have to build the jump gates, because it takes some time and planning. I agree it's not for everyone, though, but I enjoyed my time with the game, even in its early access state. The devs have said they're looking at allowing free movement, but whether anything will come of that, I don't know.

Edit: just to be clear, obviously the first trip across the galaxy might take 35 turns, but I don't mind that, because at a 'galactic' scale it ought to take some time to get from one side of the galaxy back to the other. One of my dislikes about DW is the speed with which you can explore the galaxy once you have the Gerax drive, which is why several mods have tried to tone that down. (Hey, I'm talking about DW again; back on topic.)

Osito

[Lucian]

No it doesn't take that long with starGATES, but then my problem has never been with starGATES because they help mitigate the horrible problems that MOO 4 has made for itself with starLANES. The reason it takes so long with starlanes is that - unlike other starlane based games - you have to spend turns crossing each star system. This all adds up with each system you cross in the lane-network and ends up taking a ridiculously long time to travel large distances no matter how fast your drive tech, simply due to those mandatory system crossing turns which never relax.

Yes we're drifting slightly off topic here. Polaris sector and indeed most other starlane based games dont have this problem because with a fast ship you just pass straight through a system and continue on to the next starlane in the chain on the same turn. But thanks to the weird way that MOO 4 has implemented starlane travel, you are forced to stop at each system and spend turns crossing it and those turns really add up over long distances. Its a serious design issue that apparently no dev even thought of until it was pointed out by players in EA. Hopefully they'll find some way to fix it.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Hattori Hanzo: I will really appreciate if you use a REAL wargame or strategy game to make comparisons.

Lucian: I'm actually not a RISK hater, I appreciate it for what it is, a simplistic land-strategy game. I just dont want to see it cloned and forced into my space games with no option to avoid.

no Lucian, Risk is NOT a simplistic Strategy game !!!!! [:-]

Risk is a very popular family game with a real bland strategic theme.

I know that we are OT, ma I refuse to believe that you can only use such a "filth" for comparison in the Matrix forum that is one of the best web forum for wargamers and strategy game lovers [X(]

only this.

[Lucian]

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo

no Lucian, Risk is NOT a simplistic Strategy game !!!!! [:-]

Risk is a very popular family game with a real bland strategic theme.

I know that we are OT, ma I refuse to believe that you can only use such a "filth" for comparison in the Matrix forum that is one of the best web forum for wargamers and strategy game lovers [X(]

I think we're actually in some agreement here Hattori. RISK does indeed have an extremely simple and bland strategic theme. I just dont want that EXACT simple and bland strategic theme dominating my epic space games in the form of starlanes. Thus the comparison.

[HerpInYourDerp]

Anywho, one left-over steam voucher and a few hours later, my In-Depth™ review tl;dr of the game is "alright, I suppose, if you really like 4x games and want something new to play".

Research concept is interesting (in a good way), but the execution of it leaves something to be desired; way too clunky in both the UI (for this type of game especically) and obscured - players should always be able to see what the full tech tree breakdown looks like in a 4x, regardless of what it literally 'looks like'.

AI is ok, but really awful (bordering on broken/bugged) in certain areas like auto-resolving battles. I'm not a particular fan of 'tactical combat' tbh. Being a huge fan of the Homeworld games, I get a bit disappointed whenever these sort of games claim to offer 'tactical' combat when it's clearly not - it's just some time-consuming exercise in micro (and I refer back to auto-resolving battles being completely borked).

Really needs more options and settings when creating a new game, like choosing enemy race, global tech level, colonizable planet availability and so on. Some of them can be done through modding game files, but frankly you shouldn't need to resort to modding game files for these sort of things.

Some of the game mechanics is also strange, broken/bugged or some combination of both. Fuel reserves automatically being restored to when retreating is one that's absolutely a bug and makes chasing runners impossible without late-game tech or unlimited patience, though dev has acknowledged it and supposedly will fix in later patch.

Definitely rough around the edges and could do with improvements in many areas. There's probably more stuff I could say, but can't be bothered atm.
It's alright.

[Hattori Hanzo]

I think we're actually in some agreement here Hattori. RISK does indeed have an extremely simple and bland strategic theme. I just dont want that EXACT simple and bland strategic theme dominating my epic space games in the form of starlanes. Thus the comparison.

but Risk is such a poor "strategy" game not because of its map.

Risk is the game it is because simply IS NOT a Strategy game.

the only think that I can save of Risk it's in fact the map..

you cannot seriously compare Polaris Sector (or any other StarLanes space 4X strategy game), with all its other faults but also with all its deep and real strategy value, to Risk only because they both share the same map system..

it is like comparing them because both has a box-cover with some green or red in them.

ps: anyway, End of Discussion.. [:)]

I have clearly understand that you do not like StarLanes and beside any other strategic value a StarLanes game can have, for you it will ever resemble Risk.

[Lucian]

ORIGINAL: Hattori Hanzo

I have clearly understand that you do not like StarLanes and beside any other strategic value a StarLanes game can have, for you it will ever resemble Risk.

Mission accomplished!

[Cauldyth]

This thread is proof we need more info about DW2 to keep us busy!

Okay, we probably won't get any until after the Stellaris release/frenzy dies down, but we can still hope, can't we? [:D]

[phi6]

I find I always switch between this game and Stars! (which incidentally also does not have starlanes ).
These two are the only "epic" feeling space strategy games I've played. All other titles just feel like boardgames.

Fingers crossed Stellaris and DW2 will hit expectations