RonLugge wrote:
Plate, you're overlooking the fact that strings give you the option to block enemy forces from advancing by placing a fleet in your border systems. Said fleet has to be destroyed before the enemy can move on.



Whereas if you remove strings (or even de-emphasize them strongly enough), there's nothing to keep the enemy from just jumping straight from your home world. And given that scenario, the 'catch up' is hardly easy -- without strings to work with (or with them de-emphasized sufficiently), it doesn't matter than you've got the interior position.

yeah.....Blockading currenly only works if they actually stop in the system, and thats if they dont zip off before you can attack at the start of the next round.....

RonLugge wrote:


Personally, I'd like to remove free-form travel! Those connections provide for the ability to define points of contact, chokepoints for defensive (or offensive) purposes, and add additional, very visibly apparent criteria for system importance. A 'string' system that only acts as a waypoint from A to B probably doesn't get too much extra defense, but a nodal system with MANY lines of contact is something I want to control -- it grants me an 'interior' position in the result of a war, and lets me deny the enemy the same. And it's INCREIDBLY annoying to discover 'oh, he researched warp technology!' and have your entire rear area 'open up' to an attack that you didn't see coming. (Think two 'constellations' attached by a warp point at one end, but with many star systems close to each other but dis-connected).



If you do de-emphasize strings, you need -- need! -- to add another mechanic to help balance the game. Master of Orion II did it with range-limits, creating borders that exist because your ships just can't go much deeper, and then gradually replacing them with 'friendly jump' (jump gate /star gate) and 'enemy jump' (warp inhibitor) systems combined with scanning systems.



Otherwise, the game becomes 'wack a mole' as you jump around hunting after the enemy fleets in your space, with little or no way to catch and stop them.

I wouldn't go so far as to remove free form travel entirely, but I'm a huge fan of the network nodes.



For the same reason why natural borders (rivers, mountains) etc add tactical depth to other RTS titles, nodes help to create actual frontlines or even Fortress Systems (Thinking WH40k Cadia here).

And if you finally manage to crack that nut (or maybe manage to sneak past it) the rest of their Empire is ripe for conquest (neatly visualised by all the new lanes opening up to you)

To me, that's far more interesting and engaging than simply wildly jumping across a cluster of stars, playing the aforementioned whack-a-mole.



Plus, aside from the tactical aspect, this creates far more coherent "Empires". Controlling a full constellation is somewhat more palpable than controlling "a bunch of stars top left"

RonLugge wrote:
it shouldn't be too difficult to simply 'fast-forward' and use the actual battle system for auto-battles

Right. That is what the auto-resolve button does today.

davea wrote:
The "auto-resolve" button is there. I use it all the time. It makes the game much faster, even more than a "fast forward button" would.

Um... what I'm saying is that I think the auto-resolve simply 'fast fowards' the manual resolve, making automatic choices for card selections etc etc. (Well, strictly speaking I said that the scarcity of choice and other design decisions makes that possible, but I think it makes sense to do it).

The "auto-resolve" button is there. I use it all the time. It makes the game much faster, even more than a "fast forward button" would.

davea wrote:
Ditto. I love Total War Shogun, and I always auto-resolve the tactical part. I don't want any required RTS component. I have not experimented enough, but I *hope* that autoresolve in ES does as well as tactical. There aren't that many card choices, it can't be that hard to write player AI which makes good enough choices. Any tactical system should be set up with autoresolve that doesn't cripple you.

That's one of the things I kinda like about the current battle system: since so much of it is hugely 'automated', (positioning doesn't exist, etc etc, it's just two fleets approaching, and your card picks are the only 'choice') it shouldn't be too difficult to simply 'fast-forward' and use the actual battle system for auto-battles (or at least a rough approximation rather than a totally different algorithm).

Platescale wrote:
Other people can like what they like and play what they want, but I personally am a 4X player who does not and has never hankered for a Homeworld-style combat system. Turn-based games just may not be your thing, in turn, and there's nothing wrong with that if it's the case.

Ditto. I love Total War Shogun, and I always auto-resolve the tactical part. I don't want any required RTS component. I have not experimented enough, but I *hope* that autoresolve in ES does as well as tactical. There aren't that many card choices, it can't be that hard to write player AI which makes good enough choices. Any tactical system should be set up with autoresolve that doesn't cripple you.

Platescale wrote:
Oh! Sorry Ron, I misunderstood the context here. Didn't mean to start an argument.

I noticed you missed the context. I didn't want to be quite that hamhanded about pointing it out, but...



Edit: Why don't we just say we were playing 'wack-a-mole' with my 'if' being the hammer to illustrate how frustrating the change woudl be?

Platescale wrote:
Oh! Sorry Ron, I misunderstood the context here. Didn't mean to start an argument.

Don't worry, we are all gentlemen (Gentlewomen) with top hats and monocules here!

RonLugge wrote:
Plate, I think you're missing my basic point here.



If -- if -- you remove strings, then... etc etc.

Oh! Sorry Ron, I misunderstood the context here. Didn't mean to start an argument.

Plate, I think you're missing my basic point here.



If -- if -- you remove strings, then... etc etc.

RonLugge wrote:
Plate, you're overlooking the fact that strings give you the option to block enemy forces from advancing by placing a fleet in your border systems. Said fleet has to be destroyed before the enemy can move on.



Whereas if you remove strings (or even de-emphasize them strongly enough), there's nothing to keep the enemy from just jumping straight from your home world. And given that scenario, the 'catch up' is hardly easy -- without strings to work with (or with them de-emphasized sufficiently), it doesn't matter than you've got the interior position.

As far as I can tell, warp lines always go for shortest path. I don't see any way to unbind that. Enemy warp ships will usually still travel along strings, because strings are faster than warps. That means chokepoints still exist, they're just different ones. As for jumping straight for your home world, even if that was possible with the mechanics (it doesn't seem to be), they'll be travelling through all your sensor ranges for quite a while to do that. That gives you time to respond. My core systems could build a fleet in response to such a gambit. I play on Huge, which might affect my perceptions of the practicality of jumping deep into enemy territory.

Well I plumped for the steam offer and sunk £20 into the limited edition.



I have to say the game is polished, while memory leaks are apparent, it's playable.



However, I have to wonder, should the player spend time waiting for the turn to end? i.e. after 100+ turns the wait can be some 10-15 seconds. additionally, whatever saving the game does hogs my quad core and hybrid HDD to the point that the music stalls.



Hoping this is due to debug mode....



From a gameplay perspective I found myself not being connected to my empire of choice. Perhaps it's due to being alpha but I expected deeper feedback form my colonies. Combat is boring and frankly a waste of time to watch. Risk did the card game better. I think I can safely say most 4x players are hankering for a homeworld style combat system. The network or travel is also linear (atleast to start). Wouldn't it be better to have a free form travel system with far more star systems?



Then from that have certain systems that are amicable to your empires needs in terms of atmosphere etc? Once you find the sweet spot system, it then becomes part of your empire, trade ensues it is then linked, not by arbitary lines but by necessity.



additionally I had hoped to see other species not part of any empire initially to discover and leave it to the player to decide on appropriate action. This would in turn, change the dynamic of the player's empire over time (for good or worse).





I played for 2-3 hours before noticing I could buy ships etc immediately (doh!). The static tutorials are ok for a manual but otherwise not the way to go. The tutorials should be interactive and tied to player actions etc.





So far, it's a passable game but being turn based, it's not fast enough nor deep/engaging. I personally don't have the spare time to waste 1/3 of my 'play time' on an egg timer. I suggest staggering the saves/moves to reduce the peak load on the client.



Keep up the good work.

Platescale wrote:
Because that's how Strings work, too? Note that Strings are much faster than Warps, so unless you've been neglecting to station scouts around the edges of your empire, the 'catch-up' is really, really easy.

Plate, you're overlooking the fact that strings give you the option to block enemy forces from advancing by placing a fleet in your border systems. Said fleet has to be destroyed before the enemy can move on.



Whereas if you remove strings (or even de-emphasize them strongly enough), there's nothing to keep the enemy from just jumping straight from your home world. And given that scenario, the 'catch up' is hardly easy -- without strings to work with (or with them de-emphasized sufficiently), it doesn't matter than you've got the interior position.

RonLugge wrote:
Please read my comment in-context; I was stating that it would be wack-a-mole if you removed the phase lanes and made everything based on warp tech. Currently, that would produce wack-a-mole because you'd see an AI fleet heading towards a system, and then have to jump after it -- usually playing catch-up. The result would be you sending fleets after each fleet you see coming towards a system. Please explain how that does NOT create wack-a-mole?

Because that's how Strings work, too? Note that Strings are much faster than Warps, so unless you've been neglecting to station scouts around the edges of your empire, the 'catch-up' is really, really easy.

seeing as you cant perform interseption either....

Platescale wrote:
It'll be less 'whack a mole' when the AI movement bugs are fixed, preventing the AI from parking in deep space or fleeing your fleets.

Please read my comment in-context; I was stating that it would be wack-a-mole if you removed the phase lanes and made everything based on warp tech. Currently, that would produce wack-a-mole because you'd see an AI fleet heading towards a system, and then have to jump after it -- usually playing catch-up. The result would be you sending fleets after each fleet you see coming towards a system. Please explain how that does NOT create wack-a-mole?

RonLugge wrote:
If you do de-emphasize strings, you need -- need! -- to add another mechanic to help balance the game. Master of Orion II did it with range-limits, creating borders that exist because your ships just can't go much deeper, and then gradually replacing them with 'friendly jump' (jump gate /star gate) and 'enemy jump' (warp inhibitor) systems combined with scanning systems.

I think this may be being addressed but im not sure, and i agree with the ridding of the warp drive, afterall one does not simply walk into mordor!

RonLugge wrote:
Otherwise, the game becomes 'wack a mole' as you jump around hunting after the enemy fleets in your space, with little or no way to catch and stop them.

It'll be less 'whack a mole' when the AI movement bugs are fixed, preventing the AI from parking in deep space or fleeing your fleets.

Igncom1 wrote:
And this games unique combat system is what caught me (Could be much better in my opinion), the pases are a little wierd at first glance but the cards! I love em, really old school if you ask me

The combat system here is one of my favorite features, yeah.

Platescale wrote:
I may be risking my forum image here, but I want to be really blunt about something. I hated Homeworld. Hated it. All my friends said, 'this is exactly the kind of game you play!' I said it didn't look like my thing. They said, 'Come on, it's totally in your genre!' I said I'd try it. That was a waste of money. A "Homeworld-style combat system" would be a death knell for any game for me.



Other people can like what they like and play what they want, but I personally am a 4X player who does not and has never hankered for a Homeworld-style combat system.



Turn-based games just may not be your thing, in turn, and there's nothing wrong with that if it's the case.

Franky i dont think much of the combat either, its more like any generic RTS game.



And this games unique combat system is what caught me (Could be much better in my opinion), the pases are a little wierd at first glance but the cards! I love em, really old school if you ask me