Distant Worlds is a vast, pausable real-time, 4X space strategy game which models a "living galaxy" with incredible options for replayability and customizability. Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game. Now greatly enhanced with the new Universe release, which includes all four previous releases as well as the new Universe expansion!
•4X games are a genre of strategy video game in which players control an empire and "explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate". The term was first coined by Alan Emrich in his September 1993 preview of Master of Orion for Computer Gaming World. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X_game
I control my own Empire in X3 starting from one small ship and building up into starbases, star systems, and other ships. Exploring, Expanding, Exploiting and Exterminating everything and everybody else. Qualifies as a 4x game by definition of Alan Emrich. [:'(]
X3:Universe of games rules them all!! Xtra coming soon X3:REBIRTH 4th qtr 2011 YAY!
Yeah, and we all play RPGs no matter what we play. Don't you have anything better to do Diablo1? Like playing your precious X3 rather than hanging here and annoying other people.
Nothing is impossible, not if you can imagine it!
"And they hurled themselves into the void of space with no fear."
Civ 4 for sure, especially if I can cheat and bring mods. Have to give Alpha Centauri a mention for having the most memorable factions, though, hell I STILL have beef with the Believers.
All never bothering to advance their tech past throwing sticks at things then having their first words being a list of the 18 different ways I need to die, get out of here with that BS Believers [:-]
This is not my fantasy world. My "little" world of being between the lines as you say is SCIENCE, clearly you need a little help with this concept. 'Science' comes from the Latin, 'scientia', Which means knowledge. It is derived from the latin word, 'scindere' (to separate one thing from another, to distinguish) it's the same root as words like 'Scythe' and 'Scissors'. The reason they made this connection is because without distinguishing different elements, everything becomes just that, everything. We would only need one word, 'everything', that would be good enough, it means anything. Why bother categorize anything, why separate anything, that's so simple minded. Just refer to anything as everything, done.
Without borders between genres, genres cease to exist. Their whole purpose is to create borders to separate and categorize. Yes there is frequent overlap, there is always overlap, but to go around thinking your special for noticing this overlap and arguing your awesome progressive ideas, trying to be edgy and inspiring us to open our minds to everything (dude!), is an indication of a developmental regression. The same kind you'll see in acid junkies before they burn out. You've noticed this little flaw and so you've flown off the handle to the opposite extreme condemning the whole system that works just fine for everyone, good job.
Why SotS? I found the ship combat too micro intensive. If I want to play/see ship combat, I would rather play SINS.
Its not micro intensive at all if you slow the time to a crawl.
ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
If was not really the tactical that was great on its own but it was the massive variation in weapons system and the unique effects that were more than just damage numbers that played out in combat.Plus all weapon fire was traced and could miss delfect etc.The game has massive depth that is not apparent until you play it a lot.
This. The first time I played it I thought it awful. Then after six months I gave it another try and found to my suprise it was the best 4x game I had ever played. I wasted 4 days of holiday playing it almost 18 hours per day.
SotS is more like a real 4x wargame while games like galciv are more like economical 4x games.
DW is good too of course although I do have som annoyacnes. The maps are too small. There is not distance in DW. Othervice its great.
"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
Guys, just ignore diablo. You know it's best not to feed the troll. [:)] He's clearly determined to wank over X3 no matter what we say or do, so best not pay any attention to him.
But I digress. Birth of the Federation remains my favorite 4x title, despite its age, moddability issues, and overall buggy-ness. As a life-long fan of both Star Trek and strategy games, it continues to have a strong appeal.
Armada 2526 and Distant Worlds round out my Top Three. The former has very good AI and is easy to play, while I love the latter's depth (the civilian economy is one of the most brilliant features I've yet seen in the genre) and management options.
What I like about MOO2 and SOTS is how far they go with applying their ideas, as does Homeworld. One of the things that all three games share is how far they go to seperate how each Empire works. For example, SOTS assigns each race a type of movement unique to them, then gives them odds for accessing various bits of the technology tree. Hivers for example get awesome armor and good ballistics, but their energy weapons are questionable, since they are unlikely to get access to them. Furthermore, the Hivers can teleport their forces to other planets, but intersteller travel to hostile worlds either requires the use of Slower Than Light travel which would take many years, or the unreliable Farcaster that has a range of 10 lightyears, and has a chance of missing the mark by 2LY.
As such, Hivers are all about creating HUGE forces to conquer enemy worlds, but their moves are telegraphed. They also have the toughest ships in terms of durability and possibly guncount, but are lacking in speed and special features that the other races may have. Now, what this has to do with MOO2 is that the races of MOO2 get bonuses, perks, and disadvantages that change how they play. The Lithovores for example don't require food, psychic races are much better at cloak and dagger actions, lucky races just do better with random events, while the Creative race can access all technology through sheer research.
In short, we get races that exaggerate their characteristics, which separates how they play out and gives them character. One of SOTS weaknesses is how we can't make custom races like we can in MOO2, but at least it makes sure that every race is unique and viable. SOTS also uses the shape and hardpoints of the ships to determine how they perform in fights, so picking the right combination of weapons, sections, size, and roles of your ships is extremely important. However, SOTS fails on one count for me - the lack of planetary development. In MOO2, we can literally change worlds into Gaia planets, and place facilities on worlds. These facilities offer relatively simple choices, but the complexity comes from what they do and what order you think that you should do them. GalCiv II also allowed us to customize what we put onto planets, but is flawed because it isn't as simple and elegant - much more repetition of clicking is required to fully improve worlds. Furthermore, I liked that we could basically put everything we want onto a planet in MOO2, but that these worlds would automatically scale their performance according to your population size, characteristics, and what deposits or ruins are on a planet.
Now, this leads me to Distant Worlds and how I feel about it. What I like most about Distant Worlds is that it uses artificial intelligence and real-time mechanics to make the galaxy feel more alive. GalCiv II actually did a good job of this aspect by using political parties, decisions, borders, and so on, but the real-time movement in Distant Worlds helped with making things more vibrant. Unfortunately, I feel that the Development of worlds (MOO2) and the Combat (SOTS), or the Politics (GalCiv II) when compared to Distant Worlds, is far superior. I don't mean to dismiss the efforts of CodeForce, but I think that by looking at competitors and figuring out how they make things interesting, Codeforce could make Distant Worlds II a far better game than its predecessor.
You've noticed this little flaw and so you've flown off the handle to the opposite extreme condemning the whole system that works just fine for everyone, good job.
Thanks. [:)]
X3:Universe of games rules them all!! Xtra coming soon X3:REBIRTH 4th qtr 2011 YAY!
Has anyone tried SotS ACM mod? It looks very impressive. Think I have my weekend planned now:
ACM Mod features:
19-branched tech-tree (Over 300 techs to develop!).
great number of new weapons (including 3-barrelled versions of large weapons, heavy beams and torpedo launchers for projector mounts, 4 new siege weapons such as plasma annihilator and stellar converter, new missile-like torpedoes and many other).
new human ship models (all human models, exept stations, were replaced).
fast and nible police cutters (gunships).
new sections (CR fixed mount comsections that use spinal mounts as main weapons, DE repair and salvage ships for earlier tech salvaging, DOOMSTAR - huge DN based ships acting as flagships and siege weapon platforms).
CR beam platforms (CR based platforms with heavy weapons mounted on a huge turret. These weapons could be either heavy beams, projectors or 3-barrelled versions of normal large weapons).
CR drone platforms.
DN siege platforms (DN based enormous satellites that have a single siege weapon mount to deal with enemy DNs and DOOMSTARS).
three types of drones instead of one.
replaced swarmer weapons and explosions.
totally new explosion, engine and missile/torpedo trail effects.
reworked planetary assaults: planets now do not launch missiles, all weapons have reduced damage to planets (~1000 times lower), armor sections now can carry a variety of bombs, dropships are introduced to allow capturing of enemy colonies.
improved shielding technology. Shields are now more efficient, but they cost several times more research to develop.
"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
ORIGINAL: Raap
Can't really say I ever got into SotS. Just felt rather shallow, gameplay-wise, and I think I disliked the UI/camera or some such.
There are lots of misconceptions about SotS. The original game had flaws but they released numerous addons and patches to improve it. Make sure you have played the latest version before making judgements.
Realtime space combat can at first seem too cumbersome but once you learn to slow the time and also learn the shortcut keys youll have no problem with it. I thought it was awful at first until I learned to slow the time and use
shortcut keys.
The game felt very shallow at first but once you play it actually shows a lot of hidden depth. Thers lots of stuff you wont notice at first until you actually give it a good playthrough. There are lots of hidden suprises like AI rebellions or stuff like asteroid defense. If you research heavily into AI weapons you might have AI rebel on you.
Ship design might seem simple at first but once you do research you get so much new options that it actually become very detailed and interesting. Ship weapons are not just different in damage but in effect. I.E "space cannons" dont just do damage on enemy ships they push them too throwing them off course. With good number of good cannons you can put enemy ships in uncontrallabe spin.
Ship design and combat plays a major role in this game. It might seem shallow at first but thats just because lack of research. Once you advance the options open for you and actually see all the variety. And it not just fluff. It really makes big difference how you design your ships and how you use them in battle.
Som combat detail examples. Ship weapons cant fire 360 degrees. They are lock to certain side excluding turreted weapons. You can pause the game with shortcut and order your ships to destroy individual components of enemy ships by simply clicking that point (i.e turret, engine, fuel tank, etc) in the ship. Ships have different manouvering speed according to their race, class and design. Small fast ships could manouver around a big ship avoiding its forward weapons while taking out its turrets. The game has visible damage. You can actually see damage on armor and individual components. Also Im not 100% but I think that solid weapons like cannon shots can ricochet. Atleast they look like they do if they hit on bad angle. At times the space is full of sharpnell from ricochets.
Of course if combat is not what you like most in 4X then this might not be for you. In SotS youll spend lots of time in it just like in moo2. Its not a meaningless sidefeature like in galciv2.
"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
I agree with Zakhal. SOTS now has three expansions, those being Born of Blood, Murder of Crows, and Argos Naval Yards. You can buy the complete collection at Amazon for about $20 right now.
Don't think I played enough battles to really see such depth in it. I guess I was more referring to the planet/empire system, i.e. the actual 'governing your empire' part of the game. I'll definitely try it out with the latest patches and expansions though. Did they ever remove that 'count-down' thingy after pressing end-turn? Seem to remember being somewhat annoyed with it.
Don't think I played enough battles to really see such depth in it. I guess I was more referring to the planet/empire system, i.e. the actual 'governing your empire' part of the game. I'll definitely try it out with the latest patches and expansions though. Did they ever remove that 'count-down' thingy after pressing end-turn? Seem to remember being somewhat annoyed with it.
Dont remember such but its 6 months since I last played it (gonna replay today with the ACM mod).
Empire governing in SotS is more like the one in first MoO. The combats themselves can last up to 30-45min per single turn so having micro galaxy management would make the game very slow.
One more combat detail that came to mind is collisions. If ships engines are destroyed or damaged and its on course towards asteroid or planet it might not have enough engine power to avoid crashing. Ive lost a starting colony to dreadnaught that crashed my planet on a light spin when its engines were damaged on first contact while it was near the planet.
"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
The lack of planetary development is what I feel to be a weakness in SOTS. I am really hoping that SOTS2 would improve things in that regard.
I always saw it, if not as a strength, at least as a distinguishing feature of SotS. I'd only see it as a weakness if the consequence was shallow and unchallenging gameplay and the fully developed SotS is far from shallow and unchallenging. SotS is as much a sci-fi wargame as a 4X, which is one reason I particularly like it. If I want to worry too much about planetary development and such it's not as if there is any shortage of alternative games.
The lack of planetary development is what I feel to be a weakness in SOTS. I am really hoping that SOTS2 would improve things in that regard.
I didn't care for Sword of the Stars either for the same reason.
However, I don't think you can really call it a weakness, as this was a deliberate design decision on the part of the developers. They were intentionally going for a game with streamlined empire-building, so that the focus would mostly be on ship design and combat -- and in this they succeeded very well.
It would probably be more accurate to say that SOTS simply isn't going to appeal to the likes of those who, like Sabin Stargem and myself, prefer deeper empire-building & colony development in their 4x titles. I don't have to like the game (and I don't), but I do respect the developers' vision in what they were trying to achieve.
Has anyone tried SotS ACM mod? It looks very impressive. Think I have my weekend planned now:
ACM Mod features:
19-branched tech-tree (Over 300 techs to develop!).
great number of new weapons (including 3-barrelled versions of large weapons, heavy beams and torpedo launchers for projector mounts, 4 new siege weapons such as plasma annihilator and stellar converter, new missile-like torpedoes and many other).
new human ship models (all human models, exept stations, were replaced).
fast and nible police cutters (gunships).
new sections (CR fixed mount comsections that use spinal mounts as main weapons, DE repair and salvage ships for earlier tech salvaging, DOOMSTAR - huge DN based ships acting as flagships and siege weapon platforms).
CR beam platforms (CR based platforms with heavy weapons mounted on a huge turret. These weapons could be either heavy beams, projectors or 3-barrelled versions of normal large weapons).
CR drone platforms.
DN siege platforms (DN based enormous satellites that have a single siege weapon mount to deal with enemy DNs and DOOMSTARS).
three types of drones instead of one.
replaced swarmer weapons and explosions.
totally new explosion, engine and missile/torpedo trail effects.
reworked planetary assaults: planets now do not launch missiles, all weapons have reduced damage to planets (~1000 times lower), armor sections now can carry a variety of bombs, dropships are introduced to allow capturing of enemy colonies.
improved shielding technology. Shields are now more efficient, but they cost several times more research to develop.
