Index

Part 1: Navigation In Space 

Part 2: Infrastructure and upkeep 21.07.2018

Part 3: Endless Space 2's abandoned child: Politics 26.08.2018 

Quick intro here. I wanted to share few thoughts of mine and maybe even have a quality conversation about game designs. I've discussed these topics as a bar talk but since I can't buy beers worldwide I figure this would be a lot cheaper choice. I would mainly want to focus on Endless series and 4x. What did ES2 bring for the growth of 4x? What old design choices are still haunting 4X? ...and so on really. Will see where it goes. 

Navigation In Space

Of course, the biggest disadvantage of the 'space 4x' is the terrain illusion. Having a single earth is much more understandable rather and easy to create since you can't have all those mountains, forest, desert, etc... terrains. Another problem with space 4x games is the creation of the navigation in space. Without a compass, we get to roam in any direction and creating an understandable galactic map in a 2D screen is the best way to do it with the current level of the technology and the way we trained our brains. 

a regular star map and a representation of a galactic map 

But I like how ES2 using lines to differentiate the distances between systems. It gives enough impression of the general distance. So, by looking at these maps it tells me navigating in space is the most impressive part. Just like discovering the Americas, the toughest part is always, getting there. While weapons and armor technologies are the cool big brother the engine capabilities always get the short stick. In terrain based 4x, games units get differentiate a lot more, especially in fantasy games. 

Units get to swim or fly and even customize more by having different abilities. Such as a lizardman could walk faster in a swamp or an elf could walk faster in a forest. ES2 is a fiction game as well but they lack what almost every space 4x game too. They didn't do enough brainstorm on engine (aka navigation) game. It is true that people have the best time on how to defeat an opponent by combat but our brain always thinks passively about navigation too and this is a big part of spending idle time in a turn. Which is a topic I will examine in the future episodes. 

In ES2, you only get to improve the speed by "adding more speed" a desition which only effects how much support modules it will cost. Stellaris really started different thing by allowing picking starting engines but the wrong part of that is the "starting" part. It should have been a selection of different engines for different ships via technology but they couldn't capitalize that idea and caverned into the same type of engine and become another space game. 

In truth ES2 still has time to improve its navigation game by allowing a different type of engines. Yes, few factions do have a different type of engines but generic engine types should and can be improved by easier solutions. 

• An engine module making you go faster warping but slower in hyper lanes. 
• A module allowing you to refresh your movement points when passing a specific special node.

There could be no terrain but there is always a workaround. There may be not a swamp to slow units but there are asteroid fields which could deplete all movement points of a unit. Special nodes could effect hyper lanes as well, changing their color and function. Giving attention to navigation would bring a new type of battle which forces players to always be mindful of.  As long as developers set their mind, space can have a meaningful terrain rather than only relying on choke points the keyword is the engine. 

Space may not look pretty as a world filled with rivers, forests or mountains but it should have one thing: allowing all the craziness. Allowing different traveling methods increasing the gameplay. Lack of, creating this endless focus of battle balance. Next topic is going to be infrastructure and upkeep in 4X. 

Thinking on this, I believe a really simple way to make this work would be to add "Difficult Terrain" that takes all your movement points, and then create a Nav Computer module that can reduce that loss of movement points. So the first tier could save 1 point to ensure you don't stop in the node, a second tier could ensure you only lose half your points so it slows you down less, and a third could completely negate the loss. The important thing is making it not actually an engine so people have to make that tradeoff.

It'd basically be like a Pathfinder trait in every tabletop war game ever, which is usually the trait associated with tricksy and geurilla warfare factions who go into rough terrain that others would get bogged down in.

We already see some of this with the Unfallen, as their Vines essentially function like difficult Forest terrain in other strategy games.

(I'd also be interested in splitting movement upgrades between Empire Improvements and Engines- so instead of Engines going to +6, they'd go to +3 and there'd be three +1 Move empire improvements. Just a thought, it'd do nicely to cut down on engine stacking)

mamarider wrote:

I didn't understand anything written above. Why would "difficult terrain" take all your movement points? How is it intuitive to a new player for example? I know you want a cool new feature but then you should keep it simple guys or it will never see the greenlight.
Imo they just need to make it similar to sea navigation in Endless Legend: Tempest expansion. Just introduce several effects that will randomly (or as a preset) affect the lines between systems. For example it can be space debris within the line that will damage and slow your ships or dust clouds that will repair your fleets while you move through the line. 

I'm confused why you're confused. The concept of a terrain feature which bogs down units is common to almost all strategy games more simulationist than Chess. Like... you say it should be kept simple but "node which drains movement points" is the simplest thing possible, something that the game already does with blockades and wormholes. The notion of a unique unit ability which ignores said difficult terrain is almost as common, as a way for players to gain an advantage in navigation. It's one of the most intuitive features a strategy game can have.

Meanwhile your suggestion means redesigning the very function of star lanes to all have unique identifiers so they can all have separate effects going at different times, or otherwise have large clouds of "space weather" floating around which apply modifiers in the specific areas that ships pass through. Your idea is much, much more complicated.

Imamarider wrote:

And how will you know what node you are heading into when exploring? Lets say you are exploring and you happen to enter your "difficult terrain" node and you stop like a dumbass. How is my idea more complicated? I said that those effects could apply as presets to some lanes at the stage of the world generation. You can see them as Unique Anomalies but for the lanes. And you WILL actually see what avaits you rather then bump into some cockblock node of yours. :D

1. Why are you getting sarcastic and snippy with me?

2. You don't know you'll hit any node until you get there. Thats just what Exploration is and it's already how all nodes work, you don't know what's there until it enters your vision. It is no more punishing than a wormhole jump.

3. We have map permanence. Once you find the node, you know it's there. You can see it. If you bumble into it by mistake, then it's working fine.

4. As I said, my idea is an existing mechanic, applied in the same form in a slightly new context. Blockades drain all movement points from a fleet, all the time. A node with a permanent natural blockade is extremely basic. A mechanic to resist move point loss already exists with Riftborn Pops, but that's less important than nodes which stop fleets- just slowing them doesn't hurt.

5. Your method will do very, very little to affect players strategically, because it only takes 1 point of movement to pass through a node without stopping, and nothing happens outside of nodes. Slowing a fleet only matters over large distances, which grow larger as fleet speeds increase.

6. You cannot just show your effect as an Anomaly on a lane, because lanes don't have any UI element to do so. That would almost certainly require hard coding. Also, the only mechanic which modifies lane properties is Vining, the code for which would need to be chopped up to even approximate what you want, and would then need further code to not clash with actual vines.

7. Your idea would cause way more issues with unexpected results, because each effect would effectively get stronger based on lane length, because it needs to be accounted for at end of each turn. Your damaging lane would go beyond halting a fleet, and completely destroy it because the player didn't know the lane was too long to survive the constant damage. A fleet that's too fast would be unable to interact with any given lanes effect. The alternative, lanes which provide a single flat effect on entry, would likely fall off in threat very quickly.

... like a dumbass... And you WILL actually see what avaits you rather then bump into some cockblock node of yours. :D

To emphasize again... Why are you being sarcastic and snippy?

IceGremlin wrote:

Imamarider wrote:

And how will you know what node you are heading into when exploring? Lets say you are exploring and you happen to enter your "difficult terrain" node and you stop like a dumbass. How is my idea more complicated? I said that those effects could apply as presets to some lanes at the stage of the world generation. You can see them as Unique Anomalies but for the lanes. And you WILL actually see what avaits you rather then bump into some cockblock node of yours. :D

1. Why are you getting sarcastic and snippy with me?

2. You don't know you'll hit any node until you get there. Thats just what Exploration is and it's already how all nodes work, you don't know what's there until it enters your vision. It is no more punishing than a wormhole jump.

3. We have map permanence. Once you find the node, you know it's there. You can see it. If you bumble into it by mistake, then it's working fine.

4. As I said, my idea is an existing mechanic, applied in the same form in a slightly new context. Blockades drain all movement points from a fleet, all the time. A node with a permanent natural blockade is extremely basic. A mechanic to resist move point loss already exists with Riftborn Pops, but that's less important than nodes which stop fleets- just slowing them doesn't hurt.

5. Your method will do very, very little to affect players strategically, because it only takes 1 point of movement to pass through a node without stopping, and nothing happens outside of nodes. Slowing a fleet only matters over large distances, which grow larger as fleet speeds increase.

6. You cannot just show your effect as an Anomaly on a lane, because lanes don't have any UI element to do so. That would almost certainly require hard coding. Also, the only mechanic which modifies lane properties is Vining, the code for which would need to be chopped up to even approximate what you want, and would then need further code to not clash with actual vines.

7. Your idea would cause way more issues with unexpected results, because each effect would effectively get stronger based on lane length, because it needs to be accounted for at end of each turn. Your damaging lane would go beyond halting a fleet, and completely destroy it because the player didn't know the lane was too long to survive the constant damage. A fleet that's too fast would be unable to interact with any given lanes effect. Lanes which provide a singl flat effect would likely fall off in threat very quickly.

... like a dumbass... And you WILL actually see what avaits you rather then bump into some cockblock node of yours. :D

To emphasize again... Why are you being sarcastic and snippy?

I am not trying to be offensive, so pls don't take it personally. Then again we were talking about special modules in the first place, so I guess your example of full fleet suffering great damage on the long line is redundant, because you will be able to reduce effects significantly.

I didn't say a thing about lanes having anomaly tag of some sort, I just mentioned it for a comparison.

On the coding part. I can't say a thing because I am not an expert on any lvl. Are you? Do you really have an insight on what is easier and harder to implement in this particular game within this particular engine? As you already mentioned, there is a similar mechanic already in-game and those are vines, my method isn't more complicated, because vines need to be set manually and can be set and destoyed why lane effects could be presets for the map which you can regulate in the game settings (as rivers in Endless Legend for example). If you stuck into those early without modules, you can send a probe to see through and manage risks or you can take risks and explore faster. This is a strategical element that uses an already implemented feature (probes) on a new level.

I also find your idea not very lore friendly. As I understood, in your vision only nodes can be affected and those contain systems. So lorewise this difficult terrain is located in the possibly
inhabited region? There are some workarounds for this ofc, mb you can remove the terrain when you colonize a system or set some penalties. I am not against your idea THAT much, but I find it unintuitive. Lanes are like roads in this game, and ships are like cars, and the last struggle to move when there are obstacles on the road, not on the pit stop. 

mamarider wrote:

IceGremlin wrote:

Imamarider wrote:

...

...

I am not trying to be offensive, so pls don't take it personally. Then again we were talking about special modules in the first place, so I guess your example of full fleet suffering great damage on the long line is redundant, because you will be able to reduce effects significantly.

I didn't say a thing about lanes having anomaly tag of some sort, I just mentioned it for a comparison.

On the coding part. I can't say a thing because I am not an expert on any lvl. Are you? Do you really have an insight on what is easier and harder to implement in this particular game within this particular engine? As you already mentioned, there is a similar mechanic already in-game and those are vines, my method isn't more complicated, because vines need to be set manually and can be set and destoyed why lane effects could be presets for the map which you can regulate in the game settings (as rivers in Endless Legend for example). If you stuck into those early without modules, you can send a probe to see through and manage risks or you can take risks and explore faster. This is a strategical element that uses an already implemented feature (probes) on a new level.

I also find your idea not very lore friendly. As I understood, in your vision only nodes can be affected and those contain systems. So lorewise this difficult terrain is located in the possibly
inhabited region? There are some workarounds for this ofc, mb you can remove the terrain when you colonize a system or set some penalties. I am not against your idea THAT much, but I find it unintuitive. Lanes are like roads in this game, and ships are like cars, and the last struggle to move when there are obstacles on the road, not on the pit stop. 

"Nodes" are all circles a fleet can stop in, including Special Nodes particularly- which is the actual name for Asteroid Fields, Black Holes, etc., all of which are always uninhabited, and have unique effects for battles which are often overlooked because nobody stops in them. If some or all of them were natural blockades, fights might happen more often, and they would represent a unique sort of unusable "space mountain" for ES2.

Regarding coding, I do actually have some understanding of what the devs are more or less likely to be able to work with. I've not gotten the hang of modding advanced stuff myself yet, but I've participated in the modding community for ES2 and seen what problems get a shrug from the devs and which can be modded in with 30 seconds of coding. Vines present a problem because while the effect exists, there are a lot more steps of coding to take their effect and put it elsewhere in practice- you have to separate the effect from the affinity, create new visuals to denote the effect, attach new rider effects, and modify the games understanding of the effect to differentiate between it and actual Vines, otherwise you're likely to get all sorts of problems when the Unfallen try to actually entwine a system with a special lane nearby.

The problem with considering lanes roads is that roads let you stop anywhere along the path. Star Lanes don't. Once you begin, you're stuck, because ES2 doesn't have free movement around a map like EL does. For all intents and purposes, each Node is a tile and Star Lanes are the space between them.

Hello again. This time the topics are infrastructure and upkeep in 4X. I'll give a few examples from other games and mods as well. Over the years I've been observing the game industry and almost every top genre has been through some improvement but 4X (which is a sub-genre for strategy) has yet to push their limit more, to get recognized in the market. Although fully committing new bold ideas might work, devs should always find a way to improve genres core strength. That is strategy and planning. 

Infrastructure and Upkeep

Figuring out the best way to approach a combat situation, making a build for our way of fighting, creating new units...all important and exciting stuff or better yet they sell games! Not entirely true for 4X. It is very important stuff for strategy but this is all action side of things. For an RTS maybe it is the most important thing but 4X it is only the half of it; 4X gameplay doesn't offer -new or old- players new ways to destroy their opponents. Maybe an expensive marketing department suit thinks that is but from the start 4X always offer something more. That is: capturing and governing. When a 4X player sees empty plains and hills, they immediately think of expanding via building houses, industry or farms, creating something new. But of course, that is only inspiring the visual side of things. On the management part, 4X still have a catching up to do.

 Before&After. Concept art of the upcoming game. 10 Crowns.

Still using the same methods for upkeep, increasing population or industry. Adding many new resources, to the point you have to differentiate between strategic and luxury but the core gameplay still stays too familiar. Infrastructure and upkeep are the best two tools to moderate in order to spice up things on management part but let me just quickly identify what I mean by saying infrastructure in 4X and what it does for Endless Space 2. You see, there is always these resources you need to be mindful of. Food to grow population and if you don't have enough food income you will stagnate. In a way, if you didn't have good infrastructure for food you will have problems but what happens when you fill out all the population slots in ES2? You can always send out populations to other places and your high food production will stay useful as in the early stages of the game; you won't be growing population from scratch in your newly colonized system, giving that you build enough food infrastructure to sustain your new migration wave.

The industry is necessary because you have to push out your new fleets or buildings faster. Therefore you got to have enough backbone industry to push out your science buildings or wonders. Science is just the other side of the coin. You always balance these out as you don't want to waste more turn time. Until reaching an acceptable industry score you go for science buildings for them to go out faster in later stages. Dust/Gold is a wildcard because it affects almost anything. From upkeeps (building and unit) to be able to use other game functions. Influence is kinda same too but is an upkeep for laws or to be able to use other game functions. 

This is where the famous "specializing" coming in. This is where 4X players specialize the region in order to take full advantage. We go full dust or science in a system. Dedicating a system for producing units or wonders. Creating an entire system just to produce population. All in an effort to push everything a bit faster. That's when I realized what almost all 4X games do. They make the player manage time, not an empire. The big challenge what 4X offers is how to be the faster than the opponents. Being the first of building a wonder, faster at pushing out fleets, better at science. These are all great but I believe the 4X needs to expand its borders more and offer better side-challenges for managing a city or empire.

We still only have this happiness management challenge from the stone age and its tied with the crowded. EL and ES2 did offer different anomalies which give & takes but these are only for a specific planet or tile. This isn't something player can control! In ES2 you get to create these weird looking systems where you produce 1K industrıy but -1K Dust. A very high science output place can give minus industry and this doesn't affect the population that lives there? An entire system producing high tech space fleet but doesn't have a single commercial building for people to spend their wages? Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about "realism" I'm writing in perspective from wasted gameplay opportunities! 

The infrastructure could be better placed in the 4X genre. It only helps with the time management but If this integrated with city or empire management as well. Big industry buildings could give different penalties for food or happiness. Also, why our only worry for upkeep is dust? Say, I want a build a big industrial building runs with antimatter in ES2, all I have to spent 20 antimatter for building cost and the rest is not important. Shouldn't various kinds of upkeep cost keep the game more intense? As player forced to make a desition about If he/she wants to invest resources in units, buildings or sell them. We put different elements for armors & weapons without ever spending single for upkeep. Civilization 5 did start something with the strategic resources and said your swordman capacity is limited by your production. It created an entirely different management game and strategies. 

But the ES2 logic of managing resources is sadly left behind. Resources (FIDSI) should interact with each other and population should be effected with the resource offerings of a system. Not just positively but negatively as well. If the population of a system science need didn't compensate by the player this should be penalized. Same goes for the dust, industry or even influence. Happiness could be more organic rather than strict tier'ish work. The resources should be more involved with managing system or fleets. A titanium bunker should cost an upkeep for the player. Currently, players are swimming in a pool of resources nothing to do than sell it. Civilization 5 mod Vox Populi really shares this vision. As it still keeps the turn management of 4X genre but with city management via buildings not just improve but gives small penalties as well. It is up to the player to figure out how to deal with the situation.

Another lack of gameplay is the ES2 connection between systems are too arbitrary. It only affects trade but you can send resources to a place at the same turn where your population transport ships reach there in 20 turns! Core rules are still from the stone age. Even though ES2 did add to 4X genre and has depth with new mechanics but the left out ones are neither small. Time management is what 4X is about but if a group of people isn't entering the 4X genre maybe 4X needs to integrate few gameplay elements from grand strategy or tycoon genres. My next topic is going to be slightly off one; it is about ES2's abandoned child: Politics. 

I see your point of 'resource management', which could come in handy stabilizing the value of resources from FIDSI. However, newbie barriers and micro-management fatigue should be kept in mind when reworking resource managements.

1) More Connection between FIDSI: As I mentioned, I see your point. Introducing the other aspect of management and stabilization of resource value are good things. That sort of new management could be bothering but, at the same time, it could bring new strategies or the way mid to late-phase game folds out. Community Mod Project did a nice job on similar thing by tying food consumption and population a bit harsher way. But I think this game still need to give some value to FIDSI throughout the phase of the game and tying them with each other is not sufficient. So, as a new strategic choice, this could be good if well-designed. For the value of FIDSIs? It might help but not sure.

2) Strategic/Luxury Resources as Upkeep: Actually, ES1 was more similar to this way. I think it was changed in EL/ES2 because devs wanted to implement global market. It is doubtful whether implementing such system without ruining global market system would be possible, but I'm neutral on this one. This might help alleviating excessive resource-accumulating problem in late-phase.

3) Penalty for too low output in certain domain like Dust or Science: Idea #1 could be somehow acceptable but I think this one is just overreaching. Of course I know this is an attempt to clamp the value of resources by tying them with penalty. But this is just torturing players with distressful micro-management works. At least former one has some roles in mid-phase to late-phase of the game, but this one doesn't. I find it hard to see a system which is in dust deficit or lacking science output after 100~150 turns. This means that implementing this idea will give pressure only at the early phase of the game, when the player is already busy dealing with uncertainty and lack of resources. If there is proper way to implement this, I think influence and border expansion did a decent job in penalizing low output for system.

4) Non-arbitrary Connection between Systems: As you may already know, forcing players to manage and send the resources system by system will give a massive fatigue to players. Quite a large number of players are already tired of managing populations and immigrating them for optimal output. On the other hand, allowing pops to immediately teleport between systems seems highly likely to ruin the balance between strategies. Besides, immediate teleports might bring about more extreme micro-managements like calculating production and moving high industry-yielding pops from system to system constantly.

Plus, politics of this game was reduced or omitted a lot. Originally 8 parties became 6 parties. Several Senate interactions(including coup/seduce senator/assassinate senator/dismiss senate etc...) are only in game data which cannot be seen from ingame. Voter turnout code has been overridden a long time ago. But I think these steps were taken for reason because 4X game did not needed that much depth unlike grand strategy or simulation genres.

It's clear that you have your own knowledgeable idea on the subject. I believe market ( the strategy enthusiast) carves for more deep mechanics. People still want more control over their game and a complex simulation behind the curtains. It's all about solving this 3D puzzle of strategy games on your own way. The game would be still cool if you are a novice or experienced player. From Europa Universalis 4 to XCOM all various strategy lovers want more deep mechanics. That's why I believe for a deeper 4X game few grand strategies or tycoon game features could be implemented. 

But you are also right more micromanagement for every city/system could fatigue players and be done with it. Tuning is very important for these kinds of acts of course. What you saying to me about ES 1 that game the only game I haven't played from the Amplitude, that game somehow flew under the radar for me. Also, about that dumbed down politics. I hope they bring more of what you tell me. It all sounds cool because it breaks the familiarity but I'm still gathering my thoughts on the politics in the ES2 subject to talk furthermore. 

Edit: Everybody knows a 9K vs 6k army in EU4, 9K usually wins but few times a novice player lose and starts questioning. That's when you lure the player into the strategy game to go beyond the rabbit hole. With good UI and tooltips, you can make any complex game understandable.

Something I see a lot of is that empires tend to float consistently at very high amounts of Approval with little issue. In regards to infrastructure and upkeep, perhaps a system could be put in place where upkeep and Approval are linked, as the population cannot stand having many poorly maintained services and institutions in their systems.

Maybe bring back ES1's taxes, but instead of increasing Approval by decreasing Income, it would be increasing Approval by increasing Upkeep costs- essentially diverting funding away from surplus and towards civic services. That would make for nice strategic decisions between the two.

Kynrael wrote:

• An engine module making you go faster warping but slower in hyper lanes. 

I skimmed through the posts so someone might have mentioned it, but it's kinda possible to achieve that with Seeker heroes. (SPOILER BELOW!)

The Mezari hero given by the UE questline when assigned to a fleet with its multiplication of warp speed for the entire fleet makes their fleet actually opt for warp rather than lanes a lot of times. It's real fun to zoom around the galaxy that way, too!

Oh dear. I'm sorry to say, a lot of us actually complain about that exact skill in combination with engine and Fleet Speed module stacking because it lets you zoom around the galaxy without paying attention to space geography. It results in a lot of us never bothering with positioning or scouting because we know that even if we know where our opponent is, they could be just about anywhere in the galaxy next turn.

The primary point of a lot of the thread at that point was not that we need ways to ignore geography, but rather that geography is so boring and easy to ignore. Seekers contribute to just that problem.

It horribly devalues positioning and scouting to have fleets which completely eschew the concept of distance.