Is Sins of a Solar Empire any good?

[Blitzscream]

For any of you that have played Sins of a Solar Empire, I wanted to know if you enjoyed it and if so why? And what might a strategy lover like myself like it.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It's OK.
Stardock tried to market it as a realtime 4X game, similar in scale to master of orion, but it's really more like Warcraft 3 IN SPACE !
It's a good game, but for me too heavy on the warfare side with too little civilian and tech development.

 

[PhroX]

It's OK.
Stardock tried to market it as a realtime 4X game, similar in scale to master of orion, but it's really more like Warcraft 3 IN SPACE !
It's a good game, but for me too heavy on the warfare side with too little civilian and tech development.

Pretty much my thoughts. Much more of a traditional RTS with a different setting than a 4X style game.

While I wouldn't say it's deserving of some of the hype I've seen, it's still fun, and, seeing as it's no doubt available cheaply these days, worth a play.

 

[croxis]

I enjoyed it a lot. For me it is a rts where I don't have to be a super fast clicker to do well

 

[truckingpete]

I like it a lot. At first it's you are wondering what you are doing, but you can pick it up all in one game which could last for hours. I also have all the expansions. So I don't mind it at all.

 

[T_F]

I enjoyed it for a bit, but it didn't seem to have much replay value to me.
(Not that I was playing on particularly challenging difficulties, but still.)

 

[PhilBowles]

Resurrecting this long-dead thread following the release of the Forbidden Worlds DLC.

My thoughts: This small DLC does a lot to add the promised-but-missing 4x feel to Sins of a Solar Empire (and, strangely for a combat-focused RTS, it adds nothing directly related to combat). Previously planets were basically static resource points, dissimilar only graphically from a 'base' in Starcraft etc. Planet type mattered little, and the 'Explore' upgrade option was a nice idea but limited by the fact that planets could only ever have one artefact, and those were rare.

This has changed with the addition of planetary effects (some beneficial, some detrimental, some a mix), and the fact that a planet can have none, one or (if no artefacts) two of these, instead of or as well as an artefact (which are now both rarer and more varied). There's also a new axis of variation along which planets can vary - specialisation. Each planet type can be upgraded with either social or industrial specialisation, with 2-5 upgrades available depending on planet type and specialisation chosen. This could support more than the four extra planet types added. Most planet effects segue with the specialisation system, and in most cases whether you choose social or industrialisation appears to be independent of planet type (exceptions being oceanic and ferrous worlds).

Exploration now feels fundamental to the game, and adds sandbox replayability even while the AI remains rather predictable. There are still no real downsides to colonising everything you see beyond the investment in upgrading the planet's economy - even with some bad effects (like Death World) a planet will still contribute a net gain to your resources. Some of the effects are conceptually bizarre - you have to explore to find a "modern society", and asteroids can have helium atmospheres - but Sins has always been very gamey (look at things like its odd diplomatic pacts that increase firepower or armour, or having your cultural influence force the abandonment of nearby planets by the empires that own them).

In some ways the specialisation system feels counterintuitive - I find myself wanting to specialise volcanic or other metal-rich worlds in industry, however there's no benefit for doing so compared with other planet types, and industrialisation provides no benefits to resource generation. Each specialisation has two effects - to affect income (a positive effect on either taxation or trade, and a negative effect on the other) and a boost to either culture or ship production. Assuming the economic gains are equivalent, the other effect is the deciding factor, and planet effects and type aside it seems a mostly obvious choice - ship factories are industrial, everything else is social. When you focus on it is the interesting question, as it offers another early-game way of spending then-scarce resources.

It would have been nice to have a few more tech tree changes taking advantage of the new mechanics; all the ones that exist are colonisation and population boost options for the four new planet types. Techs that give bonuses to planets specialised in particular fields would have been welcomed, and possibly some that alter the effects of some planetary effects. I'd also like a planet size variable which would affect the number of explorations needed to fully explore a planet (presently always two, unlike every other planetary upgrade option all of which vary with planet type) and possibly also the number of development upgrades (and so population maximum).

For $5, this is the most fundamental change to a game I've seen from a DLC.

 

[sherbz]

I liked Sins but never got any of the expansions. I appreciate stardock though in how they managed to make a game that was not buggy when released and actually looked decent and didnt cost the earth to develop. Ill keep an eye out on steam.

 

[PhilBowles]

I liked Sins but never got any of the expansions. I appreciate stardock though in how they managed to make a game that was not buggy when released and actually looked decent and didnt cost the earth to develop. Ill keep an eye out on steam.

I can't say I've ever been a fan of the graphics, and I got it a long time after release.

Possibly unfortunately the new $5 DLC is only compatible with the most recent release of Sins - the standalone 'expansion' Rebellion (which also contains all the elements from the previous expansions).

That's probably worth picking up anyway for a reintroduction to the game, since it doubles the number of factions (none of them play particularly differently, but then nor did any of the original three, although one faction does get to eat planets) and it makes a brave stab at introducing non-combat-related victory conditions. Plus a nice homage called the "occupation victory" that involves the familiar scenario of securing a legendary artefact planet from its ancient alien guardian, which amounts in part to an "exploration victory" on larger maps where teching to star travel and hunting for "Orion" can be more challenging than actually defeating the Dark Fleet guarding it.

Sins is in an odd position - I've seen critics of Starcraft hail it as the be-all and end-all of RTSes for its relative complexity, but it tends to get neglected or dismissed by the 4x crowd because of a sense it tries to be something it's not and it lacks the complexity or play variety we're used to from our games. The new DLC moves the goalposts more towards the 4x camp, which I think is the better choice to make it distinctive and interesting - its RTS play is generic, poorly-scaled for a tactical game, and can be played while automating all the ship abilities.

 

[sherbz]

I can't say I've ever been a fan of the graphics, and I got it a long time after release.

Possibly unfortunately the new $5 DLC is only compatible with the most recent release of Sins - the standalone 'expansion' Rebellion (which also contains all the elements from the previous expansions).

That's probably worth picking up anyway for a reintroduction to the game, since it doubles the number of factions (none of them play particularly differently, but then nor did any of the original three, although one faction does get to eat planets) and it makes a brave stab at introducing non-combat-related victory conditions. Plus a nice homage called the "occupation victory" that involves the familiar scenario of securing a legendary artefact planet from its ancient alien guardian, which amounts in part to an "exploration victory" on larger maps where teching to star travel and hunting for "Orion" can be more challenging than actually defeating the Dark Fleet guarding it.

Sins is in an odd position - I've seen critics of Starcraft hail it as the be-all and end-all of RTSes for its relative complexity, but it tends to get neglected or dismissed by the 4x crowd because of a sense it tries to be something it's not and it lacks the complexity or play variety we're used to from our games. The new DLC moves the goalposts more towards the 4x camp, which I think is the better choice to make it distinctive and interesting - its RTS play is generic, poorly-scaled for a tactical game, and can be played while automating all the ship abilities.

I think really what im after is a true successor to master of orion, which is probably why i entertained Sins for a period. As you say though, its not quite there as far as that is concerned. I think it suffers from being an RTS and not turn based, which is the only format to take as far as empire building goes (IMO). I know some people laud games like Europa Universallis, but i dont really like the way they operate.

 

[tesb]

my biggest gripe with sins is the space lane mechanic. instead of exploring the depth of space you play a lane hopping game. i still long for game akin to homeworld but with a bigger scale (although homworld 3 would suffice )

 

[PhilBowles]

I think really what im after is a true successor to master of orion, which is probably why i entertained Sins for a period. As you say though, its not quite there as far as that is concerned. I think it suffers from being an RTS and not turn based, which is the only format to take as far as empire building goes (IMO). I know some people laud games like Europa Universallis, but i dont really like the way they operate.

Distant Worlds is the closest available to a Master of Orion successor, but that too is real-time and very different in terms of empire management, even though the homages are very obvious. It's closer to what a good version of Master of Orion 3 would have been than a successor to Master of Orion 2.

That's originally the promise that attracted me to Sins too, and I abandoned it for a long time after quickly realising it wasn't that kind of game. But getting a better appreciation of it as a game in its own right, it's fairly good.

The best successor to Master of Orion 2 remains ... getting Master of Orion 2 from Good Old Games.

my biggest gripe with sins is the space lane mechanic. instead of exploring the depth of space you play a lane hopping game. i still long for game akin to homeworld but with a bigger scale (although homworld 3 would suffice )

The way Sins plays, it's hard to imagine the system working without it. As I mentioned, it's very 'gamey' - the bizarre layout of and sometimes ridiculous number of planets in each "solar system" (not to mention the fact that they look like mini galaxies when zoomed out) makes no astronomical sense of any kind either.

The space lane mechanics aren't a good fit for 4x games, though, partly because of that loss of immersion - Endless Space gets a few things right (mostly the economic system where you get bonuses for having plentiful resources or a monopoly, and the way resources are revealed by teching, Civ-style), but is in most respects much closer to a turn-based Sins than a true 4x, with space lanes, simplified building and ship design options which are mostly the same "+X upgrade" variety as Sins' tech tree, the 'explore moon' ability that works identically to Sins' explore upgrade, and the heavy combat focus put it much closer to Sins, but a Sins game only really works in real-time.

EDIT: As a 4x (and to some extent as an RTS), I think Sins' big Achilles heel is thematic. You can play with large numbers of factions, but there are only six distinct factions (and even with fewer, random generation can result in duplication) and their personality is dictated wholly by generic AI type (such as 'builder', 'expansionist'). You just can't feel the same sense of attachment or immersion that you'd get in a Civ game where a story of, say, German aggression and stubborn Korean resistance plays out as you can in equivalent situations in a Sins game.

Beyond the gameplay implications, Sins' minimal backstory is wholly incoherent when seen in terms of the way games actually play. The basic story is that you have one faction of aggressive alien refugees who, for some reason, take time out from fleeing an unknown threat to get embroiled in a long-running war with the human protagonists ... at which time, by an astonishing coincidence, a faction of human exiles who have used their time away to develop psychic powers come back for revenge.

So far, so badly-conceived sci-fantasy drivel. But as a basic premise for a game - aside from the complete absence of any motivation at all for the Vasari and Advent to be at war with one another - it might be serviceable. The trouble is, the game for which it's serviceable is not Sins of a Solar Empire. The Vasari are fleeing a greater enemy ... which they do by deciding to colonise new planets. The human TEC, likewise, apparently thinks the brightest thing it can do in response to alien aggression is to expend its resources colonising new, vulnerable planets en masse in sectors where they know their enemies are active. The Advent might have some rationale for colonising to set up bases of operations, but not to expand widely in a warzone and, in any case, have ships that can convert colonies to their cause. Then there's the conceptual problem with the duplicate factions in game, which have no motivation at all to be at war with one another (and in the case of the Advent of either faction, shouldn't even be psychologically capable of it).

Plus, of course, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to begin with that so much planetary real estate in systems humans plainly have access to would have gone unexploited to begin with if colonisation and population growth on new colonies is such a rapid process.

 

[GoodGame]

I'd label Sins as 4X-lite and basically "Warcraft 3 in space". It does basically do the 4X features including 'city development' and tech-tree racing, plus adds in real time tactical battles, but basically the battles feel like unit spam augmented with some hero units with micro-management abilities, and the depth of the 4X features are at Warcraft level.

The strategically deep game engine Gal Civ2 is sorely lacking in Sins and might have given the tactical battles more personality. Also like Phil says, there's not much theme to the faction. They basically feel all the same.

Also even thought they strove to make the tactical battles seem more than just node battles (i.e. making the solar system's battle space somewhat large, requiring time to maneuver), it doesn't really matter much how you dissect your assaults---attack the fringe defenses and fleet, then move in.

Sins is not a bad game, it's just not an amazing game (disclaimer: I haven't sampled Rebellion).

 

[PhilBowles]

I'd label Sins as 4X-lite and basically "Warcraft 3 in space". It does basically do the 4X features including 'city development' and tech-tree racing, plus adds in real time tactical battles, but basically the battles feel like unit spam augmented with some hero units with micro-management abilities, and the depth of the 4X features are at Warcraft level.

Which is another way of saying it's an RTS, and beneath the cosmetics a rather traditional one. Teching (which in RTS-speak refers both to base-building and unit upgrading) is done in a typical RTS 'upgrade' style, only with substantially larger tech trees. It's got none of the strategic flexibility of a 4x - "play tall" is never an option; like any RTS it's about grabbing and holding 'bases'.

Also even thought they strove to make the tactical battles seem more than just node battles (i.e. making the solar system's battle space somewhat large, requiring time to maneuver), it doesn't really matter much how you dissect your assaults---attack the fringe defenses and fleet, then move in.

I've noticed - with the focus on unlockable unit abilities, gravity wells and inertia in the combat mechanics, it's something of a shame that you can automate everything (including hero abilities) and just send the typical giant blob in to do the work.

However, all of this is par for the course when Sins is looked at on RTS terms - this is what a traditional RTS essentially is, an economy simulator in which the focus is very much on the strategy involved in developing an economy that can support a large, high-tech army, and little or not at all on the actual combat mechanics at anything but competitive e-sports levels of play (where everyone knows the main mechanics and strategies well enough that fine-tuning makes the difference between victory and defeat). The large army is just the 'reward' for playing the economy game well. And to Sins' credit it does very well in the economy-management regard. It's more context-dependent than 'blank state' RTSes like Starcraft, where everyone starts off in exactly equal positions, with exactly balanced maps with access equivalent resource points, and so less a pure game of skill, but that's a key source of its replayability for me.

Sins is not a bad game, it's just not an amazing game (disclaimer: I haven't sampled Rebellion).

I played the original very little, so can't usefully compare the two, however I can say that it still plays much as you describe. It's still an traditional RTS, and while Rebellion added some diversity to the techs for the different factions, it's still mostly a matter of "the same abilities in different places", each faction's distinctive "signature" tech (such as planet-eating for Vasari Loyalists) is very late in the tree, and just as in the original these are not differences that particularly affect playstyle or that you'll often even notice unless you're very familiar with the system. For instance, each faction has different abilities to exploit certain types of world (ice, desert or volcanic) due to faction-specific population growth techs. But while this affects tax rates on these planets, it's not going to prompt you to settle them preferentially (in fact the space lane mechanic means you have little flexibility in where you colonise - you pretty much have to take everything in a certain direction). Likewise, differences in the accessibility and utility of faction-specific refineries and of trade ports aren't much more than cosmetic differences in how you rake in income.

Rebellion has some nice variety in victory options, but most of these are non-optimal in design. The science victory is very non-interactive and can make games rather short (usually an AI beats you to the tech because they have research advantages). The Orion victory is probably good in multiplayer, and is a way of deliberately shortening a game by going for a fairly easily-conquered world, but against the AI it feels like an exploit since the AI never tries to go for it, or to stop you once you have the artifact planet. I tend to play with diplomatic victory on, but it's at the same time mechanically opaque and a bit too reliable as a "win the game even when losing militarily/economically" option as long as you can stay alive long enough (and it does take a long time to complete). Allied Victory is good on larger maps, but I found on small maps that I'd tend to ally with a power that loved to wipe out everyone else with its superweapons, which resulted in the AI winning the game for me.