Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Demiurge4
Aug 10, 2011

Koramei posted:

Maybe I'm just not thinking about it right, but planetary management being disabled as you get larger sounds like it'll bother the hell out of me. Even when automation in games is practical and makes a lot of sense it still always feels like "well the AI doesn't know how to manage the planets as well as me, why should I hand over control". Especially if a big part of the early game is having nicely optimized planets, and suddenly when you get bigger you find their efficiency hits the toilet. It'll just seem really jarring.

I had an idea for using leaders instead of the national focus to let you micro a planet and leave the rest on automation. In a large Empire you would then personally manage probably 3-5 planets through your leaders and min max the hell out of them. The planets you manage might occasionally change depending on whether or not you find a planet with more potential than one you're managing right now or if you like to guide new colonies yourself. I think it's a decent middle ground. It's probably just best to wait for more info though.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009
RTW and M2TW had that system if you ticked a box, and surprise surprise nobody played with it, because the AI would do stupid poo poo in all your other cities.

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Pharnakes posted:

RTW and M2TW had that system if you ticked a box, and surprise surprise nobody played with it, because the AI would do stupid poo poo in all your other cities.

Those games had some good UI that let you zoom in on the cities that needed your attention so the AI was definitely not needed. Messages when cities had finished construction or grown enough to be expanded, and lists with icons where cities were idle.

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

If a system in a game has an optimal solution or state, and the only cost of getting there is the player's time and micro-management that entire system should be abstracted with the numbers being based on the assumption of the player correctly optimizing things, otherwise it's just pointless busy work that gets frustrating very quickly. If the question is only how you want to specialize a planet, then just ask the player. This planet is mineral rich, set it as a forge world which automatically sets everything optimized for production, done. Don't have an AI governor that attempt to optimize things but maybe the player can do better, just abstract the whole system assuming the optimal, that's way easier than designing a whole player-managed system then making a AI play that system. Either the AI does a good job and the player ignores the system, or the AI does a bad job and the players manually do everything because they have OCD and have to do everything right. That again depends on how bad the AI is. If the AI can handle things about 90% as well as a player that's good. If the AI is really lovely and you can get way better results doing it by hand then the AI is useless.

I mean it really depends on the context of the whole game. The more you abstract lesser details the more you can focus on others.

junidog
Feb 17, 2004
Seems like they have a solid base to work off of with how CK2 already does some of the delegation/change in scope as you get bigger. As a duke, you care a lot about who each of your counts are, and you manage building up your holdings. Once you're a king, you care about your dukes, but not so much who their counts are. Additionally, although you've gone up an order of magnitude in total size, you still have about the same number of direct holdings where you manage the buildings, so the micromanagement hasn't exploded.

Seems like something along those lines would work well: you start delegating control of sectors as you get bigger, but still manage your homeworld or home-system yourself, so you don't have control of the planets taken away from you, you get to continue playing the tile game, and get the same sense of progression when you unlock a new building or whatever, but you aren't wasting time building on 100 planets.

Dibujante
Jul 27, 2004
I really want to see something like CK2's subinfeudation system apply here. That would allow the player perfect granularity - they could hold onto individual planets, sectors, or even whole systems depending on how much they wanted to manage them. E.g. you might want to manage Earth directly but after that only want to manage the governor of the Solar System, who in turn manages all of the other planets.

Basically feudalism seems like the bright future of humanity.

zedprime
Jun 9, 2007

yospos
CK2 seems sort of scary to invoke. It might have changed since I last played, but I remember it usually being the case that if you were actually playing it as a serious spreadsheet game (which is your fault to begin with but relevant to trying to bring it up as a target) you would still be subsidizing and directing building of some more important territories because the AI had no idea how to make money, pick the better improvements, or both.

The strength ends up being the irrelevance of the civics in most of the facets players end up caring about.

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

Dibujante posted:

I really want to see something like CK2's subinfeudation system apply here. That would allow the player perfect granularity - they could hold onto individual planets, sectors, or even whole systems depending on how much they wanted to manage them. E.g. you might want to manage Earth directly but after that only want to manage the governor of the Solar System, who in turn manages all of the other planets.

Basically feudalism seems like the bright future of humanity.

I'd love this if it was optional, like one of many forms of government, depending on your culture and technology and choices. You could start off as near-future humans and end up a horrible bloated barely unified "empire of man" situation as you sprawled across the galaxy wiping out everything in your path but your backwards social, communications, and government tech forces you to be massively decentralized. Or you could have a smaller more focused empire that is run with perfect direct control and absolute efficiency.

I'd also love to see expanding faster than your society and government can keep up make your empire ripe for instability. I want the possibility of CK2 in space, with treacherous governors taking a whole sector off to become separatists. But I also want all sorts of efficient utopias to be possible too.

Dibujante
Jul 27, 2004

Baronjutter posted:

I'd love this if it was optional, like one of many forms of government, depending on your culture and technology and choices. You could start off as near-future humans and end up a horrible bloated barely unified "empire of man" situation as you sprawled across the galaxy wiping out everything in your path but your backwards social, communications, and government tech forces you to be massively decentralized. Or you could have a smaller more focused empire that is run with perfect direct control and absolute efficiency.

I'd also love to see expanding faster than your society and government can keep up make your empire ripe for instability. I want the possibility of CK2 in space, with treacherous governors taking a whole sector off to become separatists. But I also want all sorts of efficient utopias to be possible too.

It's optional in CK2 as well. You hit diminishing returns. Ruling over 5 provinces directly is far more powerful than ruling over 1 province and 4 counts, for example. The diminishing returns definitely do hit after you've got a few vassals, so very small, very focused empires would be at a disadvantage, but not an insurmountable one, I think.

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

Dibujante posted:

It's optional in CK2 as well. You hit diminishing returns. Ruling over 5 provinces directly is far more powerful than ruling over 1 province and 4 counts, for example. The diminishing returns definitely do hit after you've got a few vassals, so very small, very focused empires would be at a disadvantage, but not an insurmountable one, I think.

But of course in CK there isn't really a tech effect on where the efficient direct-rule point is. In Stellaris it could shift bigger and bigger as your tech increases, and if you expand too fast too early you could fall apart. Which of course creates a more interesting universe. Hell I'd play a game with just 1 nation at the start, rapidly expanding unopposed into space but eventually falling apart and populating the galaxy with dozens of empires and cultures.

Tomn
Aug 23, 2007

And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands
A space game where you actually have meaningful reasons not to expand wildly in every direction you can would be pretty sweet.

Mans
Sep 14, 2011

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Pharnakes posted:

RTW and M2TW had that system if you ticked a box, and surprise surprise nobody played with it, because the AI would do stupid poo poo in all your other cities.

for some reason every time i let the AI do that in M2TW they would only expand roads, farms and brothels so i'd get this super populated cities with pathethic churches, adminsitrative and military buildings but wonderful roads and cathouses.

The Sharmat
Sep 5, 2011

by Lowtax
Sounds like the AI was set to Libertarian.

MilkmanLuke
Jul 4, 2012

I'm da prettiest, so I'm da boss.

Baus is boss.
Well, I know at least one goon who's got two thumbs and made it into the beta.

...and has never played a HoI game before.

It's going to suck to not be able to talk about it. :negative:

Demiurge4
Aug 10, 2011

Hearts of Iron 4 is a cool foray into simplifying previously very complex systems and making the gameplay more engaging. The big thing about Hearts of Iron has always been that the economy was arguably more important than the actual combat, which was often very short, brutal and the first few engagements determined the winner very quickly. It's also a major departure in that way from previous titles that embraced that complexity but Hearts of Iron is a WW2 game and the focus on combat is probably the right choice.

Stellaris is more of that though. From what we've seen I think it's safe to say that Paradox is making a traditional 4x with very little new and groundbreaking innovations. They are taking the Blizzard path of development where they take previously existing features and game mechanics and refining them. Stellaris could be the WoW of 4x space games. This is personally a little disappointing to me because I was hoping they'd take a very cool leap into Europa Universalis/Victoria 2 in space. When they mentioned the word POPs a lot of us got very excited but it seems so far populations are just numbers of 1 and a population can be 5 humans, 2 alien X and 3 alien Y. Resources are a simple minerals -> production with science, energy and food as additional resources. This is as others have pointed out basically just Civilization with minerals thrown in as an extra strategic resource (global).

What I personally would have liked was a Victoria based economy where planets produce a variety of goods that are used throughout your empire where distances become important for supply/demand. Developed industrial worlds could produce components and industrial goods that new colonies require for development but can't produce themselves and receive basic or refined resources in return. As a sector develops and all worlds become fairly self-sufficient the increasing populations would be what drives the economy as asteroid mines, barren worlds and gas giants provide the raw resources that keep the furnaces going to produce luxuries and drive the sectors culture. You would be able to organically develop the economies of your empire.

It's not a bad thing that Paradox is doing this because I expect that Stellaris will be very good. It's just disappointing that they seem to be playing it safe in a genre that has been stagnated for over a decade.

Sindai
Jan 24, 2007
i want to achieve immortality through not dying
They haven't done diaries on the parts of Stellaris that sounded really interesting in the early previews - federations and major events/disasters.

RabidWeasel
Aug 4, 2007

Cultures thrive on their myths and legends...and snuggles!
I think making Stellaris into an actual good game will be groundbreaking enough for the genre if they manage it, no need to do anything fancy.

MilkmanLuke
Jul 4, 2012

I'm da prettiest, so I'm da boss.

Baus is boss.

Sindai posted:

They haven't done diaries on the parts of Stellaris that sounded really interesting in the early previews - federations and major events/disasters.

Yeah, the late game disasters are probably the thing I'm most hyped to hear about.

The Sharmat
Sep 5, 2011

by Lowtax
Are we talking SotS style grand menaces? Bring on the Locust Fleet-Worlds.

Nothingtoseehere
Nov 11, 2010


The space 4X genre is probably unique in having no brilliant games for a long time despite a fairly steady pace of people trying to make good ones, and getting average/good at best. Maybe there's something about how divergent fans expectations are about the genre that you never get a universally acclaimed game?

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

nothing to seehere posted:

The space 4X genre is probably unique in having no brilliant games for a long time despite a fairly steady pace of people trying to make good ones, and getting average/good at best. Maybe there's something about how divergent fans expectations are about the genre that you never get a universally acclaimed game?

I think the problem is that they try to be groundbreaking and innovative or do the same old tired poo poo in the wrong places.
Also none of them have had good combat since moo2. Either fully abstract it or give me fully hands on turn based battles, none of this real-time no or limited control 3d cut scene bullshit. I don't think it's a problem with the genre, it's just all the attempts have suffered from poor design.

The Sharmat
Sep 5, 2011

by Lowtax

Baronjutter posted:

Also none of them have had good combat since moo2. Either fully abstract it or give me fully hands on turn based battles, none of this real-time no or limited control 3d cut scene bullshit. I don't think it's a problem with the genre, it's just all the attempts have suffered from poor design.

Sword of the Stars.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

nothing to seehere posted:

The space 4X genre is probably unique in having no brilliant games for a long time despite a fairly steady pace of people trying to make good ones, and getting average/good at best. Maybe there's something about how divergent fans expectations are about the genre that you never get a universally acclaimed game?
From my perspective, a lot of the space 4x games that have come out have all had low budgets and end up being poo poo on release, get no support, have bad sales, and then never git gud because they dont sell.

That and the aforementioned no outstanding combinations of abstraction/interesting innovations/improvements of old or bad mechanics. I liked how Endless space had you simply building buildings for a system and had some ship customization that let you build terrible awful ships if you have no idea what you are doing or build unstoppable murder machines if you did. I didnt like actual combat or how every solar system ends up being the same thing with the same buildings and you end up picking a spec for it and then ignore it except for queueing new buildings and/or ships.

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

The Sharmat posted:

Sword of the Stars.

Wasn't a bit fan of the combat there. They all go real time and 3d but end up having the tactical depth of a lovely rts where you just select all and throw them at the other side. moo2's wasn't perfect or even great but I still like it most of any 4x. Firing arcs, shield arcs, special systems, turn order, they all played a role. You could design a ship with rear facing weapons and run-away from the enemy to keep them at stand-off range. You could make 2 shot missile boats that fired everything and ran away while a 100% defensive ship stayed behind to keep the battle going. You could have a ship specializing in killing crew while a fast-moving troop ship would quickly move in after and board or launch assault shuttles. You'd come up with designs to specifically try to counter the enemy you're fighting.

moo2 had a lot of balance issues that invariably ended up with you just sticking massively miniaturized auto-fire AP mass drivers or Gauss Cannons on, but in theory if balanced a bit better there was a huge wealth of options and different valid strategies. If you're going to give me the ability to design ships and control battles, make it really fun. If not, abstract it to Paradox levels. But don't make me sit through some 3d battle where my input barely matters.

The Sharmat
Sep 5, 2011

by Lowtax

Baronjutter posted:

Wasn't a bit fan of the combat there. They all go real time and 3d but end up having the tactical depth of a lovely rts where you just select all and throw them at the other side. =

Never played multiplayer huh?

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Baronjutter posted:

Wasn't a bit fan of the combat there. They all go real time and 3d but end up having the tactical depth of a lovely rts where you just select all and throw them at the other side. moo2's wasn't perfect or even great but I still like it most of any 4x. Firing arcs, shield arcs, special systems, turn order, they all played a role. You could design a ship with rear facing weapons and run-away from the enemy to keep them at stand-off range. You could make 2 shot missile boats that fired everything and ran away while a 100% defensive ship stayed behind to keep the battle going. You could have a ship specializing in killing crew while a fast-moving troop ship would quickly move in after and board or launch assault shuttles. You'd come up with designs to specifically try to counter the enemy you're fighting.

Sword of the Stars has like the shittiest UI, and at the start of the game you don't have sensors or the ability to look at the map because Mecron is awesome. The thing is there may be more depth there than a lot of people realize from the garbage tactical UI.

SOTS has firing arcs, vastly different weapon types, shields vs deflectors that operate completely differently, racial differences to maneuvering speed (acceleration and top speed), racial differences to module health, racial differences to weapon slots, racial differences to research trees which over time greatly affects which weapons you'll be using and which ones you'll be fighting...

It's really worth another try if you're pining for a good tactical combat space game.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

The problem with space 4x games is that they're a regular 4x game except you are kinda obliged to make most of the screen black and therefore difficult to make out detail, and you are similarly obliged to make unit movement awkward and often non-intuitive.

Lots of the design choices that make Endless Legend a much better game than Endless Space were only possible because they went back to hexes and detailed terrain.

The Sharmat
Sep 5, 2011

by Lowtax

Rakthar posted:

SOTS has firing arcs, vastly different weapon types, shields vs deflectors that operate completely differently, racial differences to maneuvering speed (acceleration and top speed), racial differences to module health, racial differences to weapon slots, racial differences to research trees which over time greatly affects which weapons you'll be using and which ones you'll be fighting...

Nothing like that first time playing multiplayer as the Hivers when some rear end in a top hat Liir with a single scout just goes from fleet to fleet blowing up your gateships' engines and leaving them stranded in the middle of nowhere.

Westminster System
Jul 4, 2009
Sins of a Solar Empire is up there for me.

Gamerofthegame
Oct 28, 2010

Could at least flip one or two, maybe.

The Sharmat posted:

Never played multiplayer huh?

To be fair that was more of a shitshow then Civ4/5's, to memory.

Mans
Sep 14, 2011

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

The Sharmat posted:

Are we talking SotS style grand menaces? Bring on the Locust Fleet-Worlds.

the peacekeeper is one of my favorite things of all video gaming

Groogy
Jun 12, 2014

Tanks are kinda wasted on invading the USSR

Mans posted:

the peacekeeper is one of my favorite things of all video gaming

I remember the first time I encountered them my response in my head was

"Bahahahaha this dumb NPC think he can stop my mighty Swarm Empire with Gates from every corner of the galaxy! How is he going to prevent my mighty fleet from crushi..... Hey wait! What are you doing! No stop please stoooooop!" :magical:

Groogy fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Nov 20, 2015

The Sharmat
Sep 5, 2011

by Lowtax

Groogy posted:

I remember the first time I encountered them my response in my head was

"Bahahahaha this dumb NPC think he can stop my mighty Swarm Empire with Gates from every corner of the galaxy! How is he going to prevent my mighty fleet from crushi..... Hey wait! What are you doing! No stop please stoooooop!" :magical:

MEASURES BEYOND YOUR UNDERSTANDING

Mans
Sep 14, 2011

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Groogy posted:

I remember the first time I encountered them my response in my head was

"Bahahahaha this dumb NPC think he can stop my mighty Swarm Empire with Gates from every corner of the galaxy! How is he going to prevent my mighty fleet from crushi..... Hey wait! What are you doing! No stop please stoooooop!" :magical:

the fact that his weaponry looked and sounded like a civil war in a circus was the cherry on top of the cake.

he'd insta teleport anywhere you were being naughty and he'd vomit all the colors of the rainbow in all shapes and forms everywhere.

it was horrifying to use the Humans and get a Peacekeeper while you were mid travel.

Star
Jul 15, 2005

Guerilla war struggle is a new entertainment.
Fallen Rib
HoI4 DD about civil wars:dance:

RabidWeasel
Aug 4, 2007

Cultures thrive on their myths and legends...and snuggles!

This actually sounds really fun, I'm impressed.

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009
That's pretty much what I've been hoping for, I'm looking forwards to the game much more now. Paradox is rolling out some cool changes

csm141
Jul 19, 2010

i care, i'm listening, i can help you without giving any advice
Pillbug
This seems like a good feature and I hope it ends up in V3.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Chief Savage Man posted:

This seems like a good feature and I hope it ends up in V3.
The election system should function exactly like the civil war system, except the units fighting and their strength are based on voting laws, with the winner ending up forming a government.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

The Sharmat
Sep 5, 2011

by Lowtax

A Buttery Pastry posted:

The election system should function exactly like the civil war system, except the units fighting and their strength are based on voting laws, with the winner ending up forming a government.

This but unironically

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply