Huge fan of 4x games going back to the 90's with "Warlords" all the way through the Civ franchise, MOO, GalCiv2 and others. I prefer space-based strategy, and if I had to build my 'perfect' space 4x game, it would be a combination of MOO2, Star Wars Rebellion and GalCiv2.



I got lucky by being one of the few who purchased Endless Space during Steam's inadvertant sale recently. I've enjoyed the last couple days of solid gameplay, but honestly it's just not sucking me in like GalCiv2 does. I realize future expansions will seriously improve the experience, so I'm holding off final judgement for awhile, but I've given some initial impressions below.



Here's what I like:



1) Space combat is gorgeous, and the phase system is unique. I love the card idea, I just wish there was a little more feedback on the choices I make, as I've had similar success both randomly picking actions versus trying to maximize my strengths and the enemy's weaknesses. Perhaps I just haven't figured it out, yet.



2) Return of the hero system. Special characters were one of the best parts of Star Wars Rebellion especially, and to a lesser extent MOO2. Through the course of gameplay, they define themselves and you either love them or hate them(if he's your enemy). I just wish ES would increase the number substantially and give them more to do than merely sit on fleets or on colonies (see the various missions from Rebellion, if anyone remembers that game).



3) The tech tree is pretty neat. I'm not quite sure I agree with how each tech is assigned to the 4 sciences, but it's a unique system that really forces you to make some tough choices. The tech explanations are also a nice touch, even if it's probably just technobabble.



What I don't like...



1) Building ships and managing fleets should be more intuitive and with additional depth. Trying to figure out where my fleets and ships are is really a pain in the ass, and I have to constantly go to the fleet screen when I should be able to do nearly everything from the galactic map. In addition, I'd like to design the entirety of my ships instead of using prefab models of each class. I'd also like to name each individual vessel. I realize it's annoying to mention other games that do things better because Endless Space is it's own game, but GalCiv2 blows ES out of the water here. It's such an important feature that it severely limits replayability for me.



2) Space travel between systems. I have gotten used to, and spoiled by the free range travel systems offered by other space 4x games. I want to go from point A to point B without following lines (the tech that allows this doesn't seem to work).



3) No land battles (yet?). I never understood why 4X space games always blow off the importance of land battles. "But if you control the skies, you control the planet blah blah..." My answer: Not necessarily. In addition, this is obviously a game that caters to the micro-manager. In that sense, future expansions should include the need to raise armies, transport them, and fight with some form of optional strategy-- at the very least using a similar card/phase system as space battles.



4) Stuff that doesn't work or perhaps doesn't work properly. Every game has issues upon release, but to ignore them sends a message of acceptance to the developers. There are no random events, I'm not told when my fleets arrive at their destinations (especially colony ships), I'm not informed when enemy fleets (like pirates) are spotted, I don't think I've ever gotten to melee phase in space battles and I'm not sure the card system does what it's intended to. All of these I have no doubt will be corrected or tweaked sooner rather than later, which is why it's the lowest level gripe I've got.

ChaosTheory wrote:
3) The tech tree is pretty neat. I'm not quite sure I agree with how each tech is assigned to the 4 sciences, but it's a unique system that really forces you to make some tough choices. The tech explanations are also a nice touch, even if it's probably just technobabble.

What do you mean by how the techs are assigned?

ChaosTheory wrote:
1) Building ships and managing fleets should be more intuitive and with additional depth. Trying to figure out where my fleets and ships are is really a pain in the ass, and I have to constantly go to the fleet screen when I should be able to do nearly everything from the galactic map. In addition, I'd like to design the entirety of my ships instead of using prefab models of each class. I'd also like to name each individual vessel. I realize it's annoying to mention other games that do things better because Endless Space is it's own game, but GalCiv2 blows ES out of the water here. It's such an important feature that it severely limits replayability for me.

When there are points in the game where you can have thousands of ships, naming each individual ships sounds more like a chore than a feature. Plus, the current naming system is important - the ship designs will all have a number, so you know if this is the same ship you fought before or if it's been changed.

Designing ships entirely is kind of a hollow point; we're obviously not going to get some Spore editor, and the complications in designing a more customizable system are incredible. For one thing, it would cause multiplayer games to lag a lot more if the game had to transfer data on a players' ships' appearance instead of just module information.

ChaosTheory wrote:
2) Space travel between systems. I have gotten used to, and spoiled, by the free range travel system of GalCiv2. I want to go from point A to point B without following lines (the tech that allows this doesn't seem to work).

You need to hold left CTRL.

ChaosTheory wrote:
3) No land battles (yet?). I never understood why 4X space games always blow off the importance of land battles. "But if you control the skies, you control the planet blah blah..." My answer: Not necessarily. In addition, this is obviously a game that caters to the micro-manager. In that sense, future expansions should include the need to raise armies, transport them, and fight-- at the very least using a similar card/phase system.

The problem with having armies is that the player who just nukes the planet from orbit instantly wins. Even if they intercept the missiles/bombs, that's really just Invasion Resistance. It's true that if you control the skies, you control the planet - if you have ways of taking out a planet from orbit, why would you EVER go out of your way to spend the time, resources, and INCREDIBLE sums of money needed to fund a military as opposed to buying more bombs?

If you want a game that requires armies, Star Wars: Empire at War is probably your best bet.

My answers in bold.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
What do you mean by how the techs are assigned?



It's tough trying to do something different with multiple branches of tech that reach into multiple areas instead of the usual "social tech", "military tech", "planet improvements", etc. There is so much overlap in their system that it almost defeats the purpose of having 4 tech trees, and it often makes the tech flow in contrived challenges instead of a practical course of scientific advancement.



When there are points in the game where you can have thousands of ships, naming each individual ships sounds more like a chore than a feature. Plus, the current naming system is important - the ship designs will all have a number, so you know if this is the same ship you fought before or if it's been changed.

Designing ships entirely is kind of a hollow point; we're obviously not going to get some Spore editor, and the complications in designing a more customizable system are incredible. For one thing, it would cause multiplayer games to lag a lot more if the game had to transfer data on a players' ships' appearance instead of just module information.



It's a dislike, not a "I want you to add this feature". It'd be great, though. As for naming, it works in GalCiv2 just fine, though admittedly not everyone will have the patience to name hundreds of ships. I usually do.



You need to hold left CTRL.



It's slow, but works. Thanks for the tip!



The problem with having armies is that the player who just nukes the planet from orbit instantly wins. Even if they intercept the missiles/bombs, that's really just Invasion Resistance. It's true that if you control the skies, you control the planet - if you have ways of taking out a planet from orbit, why would you EVER go out of your way to spend the time, resources, and INCREDIBLE sums of money needed to fund a military as opposed to buying more bombs?

If you want a game that requires armies, Star Wars: Empire at War is probably your best bet.



I guess this could be a discussion for another thread, but obliterating planets would have significant social and political repercussions which I don't think the other galactic races would necessarily allow (much like using a nuke in our society). If it got to the point where your armada had no concern over a galaxy-wide alliance to stop you from exterminating planets, then the game/war is probably already decided in your favor.



But beyond that, what if you wanted to use the population and infrastructure of that planet to serve your empire? And lastly, why discount planetary defense tech? Sure, you have ships that can fire nukes or super weapons, but who says there aren't at least some defensive technologies that have to be overcome? Shields taken down, etc.



We're not talking about current Earth vs some advanced alien life showing up-- sure we'd be exterminated immediately. But for the purposes of this game, all races are advanced races of similar capability. It's not unreasonable to assume there would be defenses that could counteract (or at least stall) an enemy's attempt at annihilation from orbit.



There will always be a need for some form of invasion force.



Anyway, SW: Empire at War was crap. The real-time strategy AI could be exploited quite easily. I played one game and never came back.

You can speed up the warp travel through research btw. If youve noticed some of the techs in the bottom tree have little green and blue arrows on them. The green arrows increase the speed of the warp travel, the blue ones increase travel via lanes. I think anyways. Eventually it gets fast enough that youll just use warp travel automatically.

ChaosTheory wrote:
I don't think I've ever gotten to melee phase in space battles.

I can't help you with most of your requests/criticisms, but if the short battles bother you then you may be interested in my mod: /#/endless-space/forum/37-modding/thread/15784-mod-anthony-s-mod



I lowered weapon module damage and increased HP to allow more battles to last into the melee phase, along with making a few other changes.

ChaosTheory wrote:
It's tough trying to do something different with multiple branches of tech that reach into multiple areas instead of the usual "social tech", "military tech", "planet improvements", etc. There is so much overlap in their system that it almost defeats the purpose of having 4 tech trees, and it often makes the tech flow in contrived challenges instead of a practical course of scientific advancement.

I think you're absolutely completely looking at this the wrong way. I love the tech trees because they force you to juggle all the four different trees. If you fall behind in one tree or another, it's going to really kick you in the arse later on. You can't ignore one tree or the other.

ChaosTheory wrote:
It's a dislike, not a "I want you to add this feature". It'd be great, though. As for naming, it works in GalCiv2 just fine, though admittedly not everyone will have the patience to name hundreds of ships. I usually do.

I also don't think people in multiplayer will have the patience to wait for you to name all your ships. No offense.

ChaosTheory wrote:
It's slow, but works. Thanks for the tip!

It's supposed to be slow. You can upgrade the speed through research (I believe in the bottom tree).

ChaosTheory wrote:
I guess this could be a discussion for another thread, but obliterating planets would have significant social and political repercussions which I don't think the other galactic races would necessarily allow (much like using a nuke in our society). If it got to the point where your armada had no concern over a galaxy-wide alliance to stop you from exterminating planets, then the game/war is probably already decided in your favor.

Technically you don't raze planets (yet), you basically just bomb them into submission. Which is completely different, in the sense that the defending forces actually surrendered.

At that point, when you conquer a system, most (I believe all) of the population survives. If there were wars, most of that population is probably going to die, meaning your opponent is still going to be more bothered by the loss of the system than the ethical dilemmas of the conquering itself.

ChaosTheory wrote:
But beyond that, what if you wanted to use the population and infrastructure of that planet to serve your empire? And lastly, why discount planetary defense tech? Sure, you have ships that can fire nukes or super weapons, but who says there aren't at least some defensive technologies that have to be overcome? Shields taken down, etc.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the second half of this. Although I think shields are completely unnecessary for a planetary defense; they block lasers, and I'm not a laser scientist, but I believe lasers would diffuse in an atmosphere the same way the sun's rays do. And the infrastructure of the planet already gives you more ships and bombs - if you shipped off half of the population to go to war, you would be slowing down your rate of ship production.

ChaosTheory wrote:
We're not talking about current Earth vs some advanced alien life showing up-- sure we'd be exterminated immediately. But for the purposes of this game, all races are advanced races of similar capability. It's not unreasonable to assume there would be defenses that could counteract (or at least stall) an enemy's attempt at annihilation from orbit.

That's what the Invasion Resistance system improvements are for. And technically, every turn is a galactic year - it will always take at least four turns to conquer a fully-defended system. So technically, the invasions are already significantly stalled.

ChaosTheory wrote:
There will always be a need for some form of invasion force.

See previous replies.

ChaosTheory wrote:
Anyway, SW: Empire at War was crap. The real-time strategy AI could be exploited quite easily. I played one game and never came back.

It's one of my favorite games of all time. I'm absolutely in love with the space combat engine. I have no idea why there haven't been other games that expanded the idea. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you didn't give it a fair shot. Or you should at least try multiplayer. There are still people playing that game online, believe it or not.

Answers in bold.

Fenrakk101 wrote:




I also don't think people in multiplayer will have the patience to wait for you to name all your ships. No offense.



I really have no interest in multiplayer grand strategy games. Not only am I unable to provide the patience necessary to wait for the opponent to make his/her turn, but they generally disolve into game rule exploit races.



I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the second half of this.



Simply that there are better uses for a planet's population than target practice.



Although I think shields are completely unnecessary for a planetary defense; they block lasers, and I'm not a laser scientist, but I believe lasers would diffuse in an atmosphere the same way the sun's rays do.



Ok, are you really arguing the impossibility of planetary defense technology in a game with warp drive and lava planet habitability?



And the infrastructure of the planet already gives you more ships and bombs - if you shipped off half of the population to go to war, you would be slowing down your rate of ship production.



You don't need half your population. Just enough to subdue an enemy planet's population even after "bombing them into submission", or at least control key areas of that planet. You'd want to control infrastructure that can help your empire, or possibly use slave labor to loot its resources. If that's the case, you'd need "overseer" forces to ensure your orders are being carried out.



Bombing a planet and leaving serves no rational purpose, and if a civilization were that irrational I'd argue they'd never have developed advanced technology in the first place. They would have either destroyed each other or remained in a pre-industrial form of civilization.



Bottom line is that you will still need some kind of ground force. We can agree to disagree here.



It's one of my favorite games of all time. I'm absolutely in love with the space combat engine. I have no idea why there haven't been other games that expanded the idea. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you didn't give it a fair shot. Or you should at least try multiplayer. There are still people playing that game online, believe it or not.



I guess the space battles were pretty neat-- a lot like Rebellion actually. It's the ground combat I was referring to. It was oversimplified and just really a mess. It took 3 battles to figure out exactly how to beat the AI 100% of the time. That alone turned me off. MOO2 had a better system and it was several years older than Empire at War. But again, I never played multiplayer, so maybe I missed out on something.

a4rino wrote:
I can't help you with most of your requests/criticisms, but if the short battles bother you then you may be interested in my mod: /#/endless-space/forum/37-modding/thread/15784-mod-anthony-s-mod



I lowered weapon module damage and increased HP to allow more battles to last into the melee phase, along with making a few other changes.

I appreciate the info!

ChaosTheory wrote:
2) Space travel between systems. I have gotten used to, and spoiled by the free range travel systems offered by other space 4x games. I want to go from point A to point B without following lines (the tech that allows this doesn't seem to work).

When you choose a destination for a fleet, the computer looks at all the possible ways to get there and chooses the fastest. Warp travel starts out rather slow, so it's often much faster to take the string and wormhole routes. This is bypassed by the left CTRL key as mentioned by Fenrakk101, which forces warp travel only, regardless of time of flight. As you research more south tree techs, warp speed will increase to the point where it is almost always faster than string/wormholes, until you unlock the 'all wormholes are one' tech, which makes warp look like a chump.

Next time, could you just remove the quote tags? It makes it extremely difficult to respond (I need to copy/paste your responses, which makes it hard to distinguish your responses from my original comments without having a second tab to see your post)

ChaosTheory wrote:
I really have no interest in multiplayer grand strategy games. Not only am I unable to provide the patience necessary to wait for the opponent to make his/her turn, but they generally disolve into game rule exploit races.

Just saying, the turns in multiplayer all occur at once. Meaning, everyone shares a turn, and it ends when everyone hits "End Turn." This was done because otherwise multiplayer games would take a hundred years.

Not that I'm telling you to change your mind (I share some of the same sentiments), just pointing it out.

ChaosTheory wrote:
Simply that there are better uses for a planet's population than target practice.

Like FIDS?

ChaosTheory wrote:
Ok, are you really arguing the impossibility of planetary defense technology in a game with warp drive and lava planet habitability?

I was more pointing out the impossibility of planetary offense technology, but you have a point.

ChaosTheory wrote:
You don't need half your population. Just enough to subdue an enemy planet's population even after "bombing them into submission", or at least control key areas of that planet. You'd want to control infrastructure that can help your empire, or possibly use slave labor to loot its resources. If that's the case, you'd need "overseer" forces to ensure your orders are being carried out.

One could argue that's already what's being done. If you're not taking enough people from a single place to remove one opulation:, then you could say that's what the game already does. If you're taking one or more opulation: from a single planet, then you're losing out on FIDS.

ChaosTheory wrote:
Bombing a planet and leaving serves no rational purpose, and if a civilization were that irrational I'd argue they'd never have developed advanced technology in the first place. They would have either destroyed each other or remained in a pre-industrial form of civilization.

Unless you're so advanced that you have robots and technology that allows you to monitor and control a planet from afar. And like I said, you could argue that there are citizens of your own empire that are left on the new system, it's just not all that relevant (not enough to make a difference in population).

ChaosTheory wrote:
Bottom line is that you will still need some kind of ground force. We can agree to disagree here.

This ground force doesn't need to be an army of tanks and war machines. There are better things to spend resources on - like bigger warships. I agree that ground forces are needed, but land battles are not. After all, if you win a planetary war, you're left in the same exact position as when you bombed it from space, and have to solve the same exact issues - the major difference being, there are less enemy populace to put to work.

ChaosTheory wrote:
I guess the space battles were pretty neat-- a lot like Rebellion actually. It's the ground combat I was referring to. It was oversimplified and just really a mess. It took 3 battles to figure out exactly how to beat the AI 100% of the time. That alone turned me off. MOO2 had a better system and it was several years older than Empire at War. But again, I never played multiplayer, so maybe I missed out on something.

The land battles were really poor in my opinion as well. They were so much smaller in scale and required far less strategic thinking. And as the Empire, when you got access to the Death Star, there was absolutely no reason not to just destroy every planet you came across. But even if it's a shortcoming of the game, I don't think it necessarily makes the whole game unenjoyable. It's not bad, it's just not as good as I would like.