Murky
Deity
I was just wondering, what features do you consider to be critical for 4x space?
What do we really want for a good 4x space game?
- Thread starter Murky
- Start date
Murky
Deity
I think for multiplayer you need a way to have some method of making the game a fair playing field. If you give too many resources to one player and too few to others, it's not a very fun game.
Agreed. I was only thinking of single player when I wrote that.
Everyone likes to talk about micromanagement when it comes to 4x games, particularly MOO3. I haven't played it, so I have to ask... Was it really THAT bad?
So yeah. New guy. My two cents, and all that.
I don't mind the subtle management details, myself. I prefer to make sure it gets done right by doing it myself. Not once have I turned on the auto-build feature in Civ. I write my own build lists, thank you very much.
I think that technology is a central point to space games (duh) so upgrading technology ought to be a simple and seamless process. I get irritated when technology is easy to research but difficult to build due to resource requirements and such. By the time you can build your first "it," its already obsolete. Ech.
And I agree that tactics gets lost in many of these games. One aspect of MOO2 combat that always had me a little lost was the fact that is a space game, you're in ships, but it takes place on a planar 2D field. Not game-killing, but still. And ground combat could have been a little more complex than "okay... GO!"
So yeah. New guy. My two cents, and all that.
I don't mind the subtle management details, myself. I prefer to make sure it gets done right by doing it myself. Not once have I turned on the auto-build feature in Civ. I write my own build lists, thank you very much.
I think that technology is a central point to space games (duh) so upgrading technology ought to be a simple and seamless process. I get irritated when technology is easy to research but difficult to build due to resource requirements and such. By the time you can build your first "it," its already obsolete. Ech.
And I agree that tactics gets lost in many of these games. One aspect of MOO2 combat that always had me a little lost was the fact that is a space game, you're in ships, but it takes place on a planar 2D field. Not game-killing, but still. And ground combat could have been a little more complex than "okay... GO!"
Murky
Deity
I agree that there has to be some micro for it to be a 4x game. It could be made simple and easy to manage.
Technology and production should flow well. In MOO2, you typically research until you get to a particular technology then you go all-out production until you have a big enough fleet.
The 2D field view didn't bother me too much. I think Space Empire's has a good 3D tactical interface but it takes some getting used too.
MOO2's ground combat is just a visual representation of rolling some dice. I still like to watch it even though you can just click through. I'm not sure if a deeper ground combat system is needed in a 4x space game. You could go with something like StarCraft combat but then that is a whole other game in itself. There are those that argue that ground combat in a 4x space game is unrealistic. You would never be able to transport enough troops to take over a whole planet with billions of inhabitants on it.
There is good micro and bad micro.
Good micro is:
- stuff you do once, or once in a while, when a strategic decision has to be made.
- stuff you do to manage an important battle
Bad micro is:
- nitpicky optimization actions that you have to do over and over and over again
- micromanagement actions that apply for every battle, no matter how trivial
A good design minimizes micro because wherever micro can be applied to one's advantage, people will do it, and then complain about having to do it. Keeping the micro strictly to things that are (a) important decisions and (b) don't happen all the bloody time, makes for a better design than one which sprinkles micro everywhere.
Good micro is:
- stuff you do once, or once in a while, when a strategic decision has to be made.
- stuff you do to manage an important battle
Bad micro is:
- nitpicky optimization actions that you have to do over and over and over again
- micromanagement actions that apply for every battle, no matter how trivial
A good design minimizes micro because wherever micro can be applied to one's advantage, people will do it, and then complain about having to do it. Keeping the micro strictly to things that are (a) important decisions and (b) don't happen all the bloody time, makes for a better design than one which sprinkles micro everywhere.
Murky
Deity
Which is more important, having a great AI or great multiplayer functionality? Is it asking too much to have both?
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I agree with this. I'd raise it pretty much everything that GalCiv2:ToA (customized tech trees per race, espionage, etc...) has, but throw in the old style email, multi-player action of VGA Planets / Stars!
And probably throw in blind research, or at least greater variability. I think MOO3 did get research focuses about right.
Also add in some of role-playing, hero-leveling nonsense that you normally only see in the fantasy genre (WoW, MoM, MoM-successors), which only MOO3 has dared to emulated in the 4X space game.
And I dare say, do the design-your-own everything approach of SPORE. Not just design your own units, but design your own buildings, bases, creatures, etc..
I'd say there's no reason to insist on AI vs. multiplayer capability, except in the case of limited manpower. The older 4x games had both. Multiplayer only needs an email server, and wouldn't overstress a system to run an AI as well. Real-time multiplayer would probably force an AI vs. multiplayer choice, but that dilemma could be minimized by simplifying the game system.
And probably throw in blind research, or at least greater variability. I think MOO3 did get research focuses about right.
Also add in some of role-playing, hero-leveling nonsense that you normally only see in the fantasy genre (WoW, MoM, MoM-successors), which only MOO3 has dared to emulated in the 4X space game.
And I dare say, do the design-your-own everything approach of SPORE. Not just design your own units, but design your own buildings, bases, creatures, etc..
I'd say there's no reason to insist on AI vs. multiplayer capability, except in the case of limited manpower. The older 4x games had both. Multiplayer only needs an email server, and wouldn't overstress a system to run an AI as well. Real-time multiplayer would probably force an AI vs. multiplayer choice, but that dilemma could be minimized by simplifying the game system.
Hate to disagree, but that sounds like an extremely unfocused game. I guess I would have to add something to my list:
4) A game that has a vision for what it wants to be, and sticks to it, eschewing temptations to be all things to all people. Feature creep is a bad thing, just ask MOO3.
4) A game that has a vision for what it wants to be, and sticks to it, eschewing temptations to be all things to all people. Feature creep is a bad thing, just ask MOO3.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
No offense, GoodGame, but I wouldn't want to play your suggested game either. MOO3's tech model is complete garbage; yeah, you have six research fields, but you don't get to pick anything! The only thing you can do is increase science spending, no choice involved whatsoever. Even Civ's one-tech-at-a-time model is better than that, since you can CHOOSE what you're going to research next.
It's better for a game to do one or two things really well, than pile on endless layers of complexity. That's the biggest flaw in Civ4 (otherwise a great game): too many interlocking systems, resulting in tactics often emphasized over strategy. The expansions definitely made this worse, by piling on "more cool stuff" over and over again.
It's better for a game to do one or two things really well, than pile on endless layers of complexity. That's the biggest flaw in Civ4 (otherwise a great game): too many interlocking systems, resulting in tactics often emphasized over strategy. The expansions definitely made this worse, by piling on "more cool stuff" over and over again.
I tend to not have a good imagination, so I leave these topic alone. I have all the Gal Civ games, except the last one ToA or whatever they called. I was not in love with those games, but they were not bad.
I do love Stars, but it has a lot of micromanagement, so I do not play it more than once a year. Not bad for an old spreadsheet game though. I surely would not like any blind research or even a lot more techs.
Pax II had a massive tech tree, but it was too much. I felt Civ4, which is a good game, but again I did not love it, had that as a problem. Too many techs to research and you just wanted to try to race ahead.
Those techs often brought too many structures and wonders as well. I think many like the idea that they can master a game and there are so many options and paths in Civ4, it counters Sid's idea of having to make choices that matter.
It had so many choices you just wanted to say forget it. I love role playing fantasy games such as Age Of Wonders, not sure if it would adapt to Moo.
You had a taste with Moo2 leaders as they promote.
The design your own would surely let me out as I already said, no imagination, I would just throw up my hands.
I do think you need MP in games now to sell. Not to me, but to many. If you do need one, then it should have PBEM as well as the standard hosted games.
I do love Stars, but it has a lot of micromanagement, so I do not play it more than once a year. Not bad for an old spreadsheet game though. I surely would not like any blind research or even a lot more techs.
Pax II had a massive tech tree, but it was too much. I felt Civ4, which is a good game, but again I did not love it, had that as a problem. Too many techs to research and you just wanted to try to race ahead.
Those techs often brought too many structures and wonders as well. I think many like the idea that they can master a game and there are so many options and paths in Civ4, it counters Sid's idea of having to make choices that matter.
It had so many choices you just wanted to say forget it. I love role playing fantasy games such as Age Of Wonders, not sure if it would adapt to Moo.
You had a taste with Moo2 leaders as they promote.
The design your own would surely let me out as I already said, no imagination, I would just throw up my hands.
I do think you need MP in games now to sell. Not to me, but to many. If you do need one, then it should have PBEM as well as the standard hosted games.
For me a 4X that is worth giving away my free time should have :
-strategic and tactic AI
An AI capable of making global strategy and using tactics in battles, or at least coded in a way it makes you think it is using strategy and tactics.
And if possible adapt to the situation ingame and to the other AI and player strategy, i don't want to have a fleet of missile boats facing during all a game an AI fleet that has full fleets of ships with only a "board ship" weapon without the AI understanding after his first fleet complete annhilation that it should build something to counter my missile boats.
In MoO1 i "feel" the AI is sometime using a strategy and not just randomly throw a fleet , it is the way to go.
-AI / Multi
For me there is no opposition on AI and Multiplay, AI must be -very- good because you must be able to have AI in your Multiplayer games (PBEM or online) that are good and interesting to play (either human coop against AI empires, or just as melee with everyone, players or AI trying to conquer the universe).
A focus on MP without a good AI and i will not be interested, as i can't care for player vs player games.
MP for me remains secondary though, as i enjoy MoO1 a very lot despite it has no MP by example. But a bad AI means that i will never buy the game.
-diplomacy AI
that is worth something and is not broken by entirely illogical results like in Civ3 (that why i like playing so much MoO1, MoO2 and Alpha Centauri)
The best diplomacy model i ever played in a 4X game remains Alpha Centaury, not only you "feel" you are really conducting diplomatic contacts with each AI, but their reaction is believable and you have a lot of options (and not just "ally with me or let's kill each other")
-difficulty scalability.
i hate when a game is great but the AI is just a push over once you know how to play, (i hated Ascendency for that as the AI is unable to do anything to challenge the player after the middle game) or in the opposite i don't liked if the AI force you to exploit any game mechanism to match its spreading as it has built-in cheats even at lowest levels.
In MOO1 each level of difficulty correspond better to your playing level, veteran can always be challenged by "Impossible" and beginners are challenged by the "Simple" level but without being frustrated by it.
-personnality.
i think it is the most difficult point to achieve.
by example i am interested by Moo1 and Moo2 races and wage sometime war or make peace in a "roleplay" way according to who is in front of me and who i am. In Space Empires 3 as an opposite, i can't seem to care for any of the races, i don't feel involved and usually does not bother finishing my games, while MoO1 has personnality, Space Empires 3 does not.
-customisation.
i want options, i want lots of options for everything when setting up my games, that's a weak point for MoO1 that the "custom race" option at least fixed a bit in MoO2.
But i would like to being able to configure a lot more for a game that will then keep me busy for several hours.
-modding possibilities.
A game more open to modding would be nice, creating new ships, races, universe, etc... is a good idea to diversify the game. there are lot of talented people in other game genre modding communities that can do real wonders, applied to a 4X game it could only be a good thing.
-usefull tech tree
I want a game that really makes choices having an important effect in the game and all those choices being interesting and balanced.
I don't want a game to offer as a choice "laser" or "quantum" just to understand later that laser follow up is way superior to the quantum one.
Basically, i don't want by example a selection of 3 choices to discover than 2 of them are just "eye candies" or inefficient for the gameplay while only 1 has a good influence on gameplay.
Tech tree should be a matter of difficult choice, and the player should never be penalised after selecting a branch to see that it was in fact vastly useless in front of the other choices.
-micro/macro management
This one is very difficult for a developer to find the right balance with amount of management and micromanagement.
too much micromanagement and the game is ultimately doomed to be boring, too much macromanagement and you feel you are not really involved in what is happening.
In MoO1 and MoO2 the balance between the 2 is right for me, i am never lost under billions of menu to check, and i am not feeling like a spectator of AI doing whatever they want.
-2D/3D
To make it simple, i am absolutely not caring about 3D in a 4X when it is only used for eye candy, in fact all the 4X i enjoyed are mostly in 2D.
For menu, map, etc... 3D is totally useless and will never be able to compete with 2D menu/maps in term or "easy to browse" factor.
If a developpers insist in using 3D, at least use it only for battle, but make sure the 3D is really usefull for battle tactics (like in Homeworld 2 by example in which some ships can be at huge disadvantage when attacked from below)
-strategic and tactic AI
An AI capable of making global strategy and using tactics in battles, or at least coded in a way it makes you think it is using strategy and tactics.
And if possible adapt to the situation ingame and to the other AI and player strategy, i don't want to have a fleet of missile boats facing during all a game an AI fleet that has full fleets of ships with only a "board ship" weapon without the AI understanding after his first fleet complete annhilation that it should build something to counter my missile boats.
In MoO1 i "feel" the AI is sometime using a strategy and not just randomly throw a fleet , it is the way to go.
-AI / Multi
For me there is no opposition on AI and Multiplay, AI must be -very- good because you must be able to have AI in your Multiplayer games (PBEM or online) that are good and interesting to play (either human coop against AI empires, or just as melee with everyone, players or AI trying to conquer the universe).
A focus on MP without a good AI and i will not be interested, as i can't care for player vs player games.
MP for me remains secondary though, as i enjoy MoO1 a very lot despite it has no MP by example. But a bad AI means that i will never buy the game.
-diplomacy AI
that is worth something and is not broken by entirely illogical results like in Civ3 (that why i like playing so much MoO1, MoO2 and Alpha Centauri)
The best diplomacy model i ever played in a 4X game remains Alpha Centaury, not only you "feel" you are really conducting diplomatic contacts with each AI, but their reaction is believable and you have a lot of options (and not just "ally with me or let's kill each other")
-difficulty scalability.
i hate when a game is great but the AI is just a push over once you know how to play, (i hated Ascendency for that as the AI is unable to do anything to challenge the player after the middle game) or in the opposite i don't liked if the AI force you to exploit any game mechanism to match its spreading as it has built-in cheats even at lowest levels.
In MOO1 each level of difficulty correspond better to your playing level, veteran can always be challenged by "Impossible" and beginners are challenged by the "Simple" level but without being frustrated by it.
-personnality.
i think it is the most difficult point to achieve.
by example i am interested by Moo1 and Moo2 races and wage sometime war or make peace in a "roleplay" way according to who is in front of me and who i am. In Space Empires 3 as an opposite, i can't seem to care for any of the races, i don't feel involved and usually does not bother finishing my games, while MoO1 has personnality, Space Empires 3 does not.
-customisation.
i want options, i want lots of options for everything when setting up my games, that's a weak point for MoO1 that the "custom race" option at least fixed a bit in MoO2.
But i would like to being able to configure a lot more for a game that will then keep me busy for several hours.
-modding possibilities.
A game more open to modding would be nice, creating new ships, races, universe, etc... is a good idea to diversify the game. there are lot of talented people in other game genre modding communities that can do real wonders, applied to a 4X game it could only be a good thing.
-usefull tech tree
I want a game that really makes choices having an important effect in the game and all those choices being interesting and balanced.
I don't want a game to offer as a choice "laser" or "quantum" just to understand later that laser follow up is way superior to the quantum one.
Basically, i don't want by example a selection of 3 choices to discover than 2 of them are just "eye candies" or inefficient for the gameplay while only 1 has a good influence on gameplay.
Tech tree should be a matter of difficult choice, and the player should never be penalised after selecting a branch to see that it was in fact vastly useless in front of the other choices.
-micro/macro management
This one is very difficult for a developer to find the right balance with amount of management and micromanagement.
too much micromanagement and the game is ultimately doomed to be boring, too much macromanagement and you feel you are not really involved in what is happening.
In MoO1 and MoO2 the balance between the 2 is right for me, i am never lost under billions of menu to check, and i am not feeling like a spectator of AI doing whatever they want.
-2D/3D
To make it simple, i am absolutely not caring about 3D in a 4X when it is only used for eye candy, in fact all the 4X i enjoyed are mostly in 2D.
For menu, map, etc... 3D is totally useless and will never be able to compete with 2D menu/maps in term or "easy to browse" factor.
If a developpers insist in using 3D, at least use it only for battle, but make sure the 3D is really usefull for battle tactics (like in Homeworld 2 by example in which some ships can be at huge disadvantage when attacked from below)
Swein Forkbeard
Nintendo Fan
How do you guys think GalCiv 2 (with the expansion packs) fares?
Murky
Deity
Of the current games, it's probably the best but I wouldn't consider it a MOO successor.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Z
Zitron2000,8
Guest
A hard question... only way to answer it is in a form of a song... http://youtube.com/watch?v=8q0YTQEr6gA
morchuflex
Emperor
- Ship design.
- Tactical combat.
- Strategic depth.
- Infinite replayability through random generated maps (no damn campaigns!).
Basically, I want a new MOO game with MOO1 sliders (rather than MOO2 click and drag) and MOO1 research, MOO2 ship design and tactical combat, and an improved AI.
No real-time BS, please.
This is what I think works well, and I hope to include them all in my attempt 
-- random maps, but detailed
-- minimal colony management (otherwise large empires don't scale)
-- ship design
-- tactical ship combat
-- 2D maps and combat (3D creates more problems than it solves)
-- partial availability of techs
-- map-based resources (adds strategic value to certain systems)
-- races with personality
-- unexpected events that can alter strategy
-- competent AI
-- humor!
While I liked GalCiv, no one should be under the impression that it is a MOO successor. GalCiv and, to a lesser extent MOO2, were actually space-based versions of Civilization. In fact, the original GalCiv used the same tiled-based maps and simplified offense vs. defense values to handle combat.
Micromanaging colonies is a huge problem in Civ-type games. Civ 1 was really the only version that didn't suffer from it and that was probably because it was constrained by the limited amount of memory in PCs when it was released. Everyone, including me, loved Civ1 so much they begged for bigger and better, but that turned Civ2 into a management nightmare.
My take on it is this... if you need the AI to help you manage colonies (viceroys, etc), then that part of the game obviously needs to be scaled back or eliminated. Every time you let the AI do something for the player, you are subtly pushing him away from the game. If the player cannot perform the necessary task with a reasonable amount of thought or effort, then it should not be in the game.. period.
-- random maps, but detailed
-- minimal colony management (otherwise large empires don't scale)
-- ship design
-- tactical ship combat
-- 2D maps and combat (3D creates more problems than it solves)
-- partial availability of techs
-- map-based resources (adds strategic value to certain systems)
-- races with personality
-- unexpected events that can alter strategy
-- competent AI
-- humor!
While I liked GalCiv, no one should be under the impression that it is a MOO successor. GalCiv and, to a lesser extent MOO2, were actually space-based versions of Civilization. In fact, the original GalCiv used the same tiled-based maps and simplified offense vs. defense values to handle combat.
Micromanaging colonies is a huge problem in Civ-type games. Civ 1 was really the only version that didn't suffer from it and that was probably because it was constrained by the limited amount of memory in PCs when it was released. Everyone, including me, loved Civ1 so much they begged for bigger and better, but that turned Civ2 into a management nightmare.
My take on it is this... if you need the AI to help you manage colonies (viceroys, etc), then that part of the game obviously needs to be scaled back or eliminated. Every time you let the AI do something for the player, you are subtly pushing him away from the game. If the player cannot perform the necessary task with a reasonable amount of thought or effort, then it should not be in the game.. period.
Similar threads
