Designing My Perfect Space 4X Game: Overview

[sabotai]

Space 4X games. The 4X stands for: eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate

Space 4X games are probably my favorite genre of games (kind of blasphemous to say that on a board dedicated to a game in a different genre. :) ). I remember finding my first Space 4X game, the shareware version of VGAPlanets, on a local BBS. In my area, though, the BBSes weren't very populated and most people played Tradewars if they had any interest in a sci-fi type game. And, of course, VGAPlanets was strictly multiplayer.

That didn't stop me. I spent days playing out turns for each and every race in the game. When it got later in the game, it got really bogged down and I lost interest.

Then there it was. Master of Orion. I can't even guess as to how many hours, days, even weeks, that I sunk into that game. Then came Stars!, MOO2, and several others. I was absolutley hooked. They were Civilization...In SPACE! Combining my love of history, strategy, astronomy and sci-fi all into one. These games were absolutley great.....well, great, but not perfect. In fact, pretty far from it.

There were always things about these games that kept me from getting *really* into them. At some point, I became turned off by the things I did not like about the game that I eventually stopped playing them. Not because I got tired of them, but because the annoyances of what I didn't like got the better of me.

This never happens to me, really. Some games, time to time, but not all games in a specific genre. I feel that this is the genre I love the most, yet it's the one that drives me away oh so many times.

So, I will design the perfect Space 4X game to me. How will I do it?

First off, by writing down my general ideas on the genre and how I would take on general principles of the games, eventually getting into specifics.

Secondly (and the main reason I'm posting this in the Dynasty section), I will play through several Space 4X games, at least once, posting what I do in the game, why I'm doing it and most importantly, if I like how the game handles it and if I would do anything different.

I, of course, would love feedback on my ideas and for people to offer up their own ideas and thoughts. I'm sure I won't think of everything and feedback would be very important to this.

Here is a list of games I hope to play through and report on

Galactic Civilizations
Master of Orion 3
Stars! (If I can get it working)
Space Empires IV Gold
VGAPlanets (No comp AI, will talk about it and its design though)
Emporer of the Fading Suns (If I can get it working)

Plus, any of them that I can find on the-underdogs and I can get working. I'll start a thread of each game, when I play it, and use that thread to discuss it.

As of right now, I am aware that Space Empires V and Galactic Civilizations II are close to beta. (In fact, I think GCII is in beta, but isn't going to come out until next year they say) Here's hoping one of them fullfills my need. I read through the new features list for GCII and they improve a lot of what I didn't like. And then a few of the mentioned features kind of turned me off. I'll go over that list in this thread. Anyone know the new features for Space Empires V?

[sabotai]

The Galactic Civilizations II New Features:

Before I get started, I'm going to go through the new features list for GCII. (If you didn't play GCII, then you can probably ignore this)

* Ship Design. In (I), players researched technology which gave them access to new ships. In (II), players research technology and then use that technology to design their own ship classes. So instead of having a "Battle Cruiser" and a "Dreadnought" players instead come up with their own ideas. The user will also be able to literally visually design much of how their ship looks.

I'm so glad they are throwing this in. One of the things I hate about Space 4X games is that after awhile it feels like I'm playing a board game and not controling my own intergalactic empire. Ship Design is a big part of that. When I can only create several pre-designed options, they feel like games pieces, not starships, to me. We'll have to see how they implemented it.

* Unique Planets. In (I) there were 26 different planets. The higher the planet class, the better. Simply colonizing the planet automatically gave the player all kinds of benefits. In (II) each planet will be unique -- visually and while they will still have planet classes (1 through 30) that will determine the amount of usable land on the planet to build on. Players will have pick and choose what they use their planets for. Moreover, some planets will be rich in minerals, others may have ruins filled with precursor technology.

Another huge plus. Not all planets are created equal and this was one of the first things that turned me off of Galactic Civilizations. I felt like I was basically doing the same exact thing everytime I colonized a planet because every planet was the same, except each one had a number rating for how good it was.

* New Map System. In (I) the sector map was filled with stars. A player would click on a star and a planet list would be displayed. Then the player would click on the planet to interact with it. In (II) the planets are part of the map. That means different players can share the same star system. That also means player influence is planet based instead of sector based. Moreover, asteroid fields and other interstellar objects can now be placed on the map to be made use of.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I've seen the screenshot and I'm still not sure. This might actually help contribute to the "board game" feel. It was one thing to see two stars 3 "places" away from each other. Seeing two planets from different stars a few places from each other might give it a "board game" feel to it. Sharing Star Systems is a huge issue for me and a topic that I will make into a discussion for itself.


* Play as any race. In (I) players had to play as humans. In (II) the player can pick any of the 10 alien races (including humans) to play as. Each race will have its own unique advantages and disadvantages. On top of that, players will be able to create their own unique races and play as that in the event that they want a truly custom civilization.

Race customization. Play as the other races. Huge plus. (Always wanted to play as the space apes. :) )


* 3D Engine. In (I) the game engine was sprite based. This allowed it to run on very low end graphics cards as long as they had at least a Pentium II 600Mhz machine. In (II) it has a 3D engine which will deliver vastly superior visuals than the first one. It also means that players with relatively low end hardware (Pentium II 400Mhz or better) can play it as long as they have a decent video card (Geforce 2 or better type card). Moreover, the game's 3D models will automatically scale based on how powerful your video card is. So the graphics will actually get better automatically over the years. Stardock's hope is that people will still be playing this game many years from now.

3D is always nice, but not a big deal to me at all.

* Resolution Independent. Resolution was fixed to 1024x768 in (I) but in (II) players can play at any resolution from 1024x768 on up. And it's not lame about it, the system makes use of Stardock's DesktopX technology that no other company at the time of this writing employs. What it means is that the user interface and other elements of the game can be expanded seamlessly even where sprites are used (other games that have flexible interfaces have to render them on the fly as 3D which limits how complex they can be).

Meh.

* Fleets. In (I) players could stack together ships and move them. Stacks of ships will still be there as a convenience but (II) will also have real fleets that will taken advantage of in combat. Fleet size will be limited by the player's logistic ability. So one of the many technological paths will be focusing on logistics. Big fleets of small ships or a few capital ships in a massive fire fight? Players will have that ability to choose those kinds of strategies.

Controling a lot of ships in GC was bad. It was a pain. When I went to invade a system, I had to basically control each ship. Just a pain. Glad to see fleets enter the game, but I hope they don't over do it like MOO3 did.

* Enhanced Combat System. In (I) ships had a simple attack and defense value. In (II) ships will have 3 types of attack (beam weapons, mass drivers, and missile weapons) and 3 types of defense (shields, armor, and point defense). Different players and races will focus on different types of weapons and defenses. Shields counter act beam weapons but are useless against mass drivers. So now players will have to do a great deal more strategic planning on wars.

Just three on each side? And each race will focus on specific ones? I dunno. Might sound like something the human player will counter easily. "I have those ET looking things at my side and they love beam weapons. I'm going to load up on shields." I hope that if I really did do that, I would see ships from them with mass drivers and missles too. We'll have to see how the AI handles this, really.

* Non-Linear Campaign. (I) didn't include a campaign, the expansion pack, Altarian Prophecy added one. (II) includes a campaign and it is non-linear. That means players can lose a mission and continue forward in the story but it will take an alternative route.

Campaigns can be fun. Especially non-linear ones. It'll be a good change of pace, but not a selling point.

* Better Game Start-Up Options. (I) was always free for all on a random map. Altarian Prophecy provided some additional options. (II) will have both random maps and pre-made maps. Free for all games will still be there but so will team games and eternal enemy options.

Will have to see what those options do, but I doubt they will interest me.

* Top-Notch AI. (I) was known for good computer players. But (II) will have even better AI.

I guess they had to mention it. Good AI is a no brainer.

* More types of Star Bases. (I) had one type of starbase. (II) will break it up into several different types of star bases with their own improvement trees.

Very nice. Customization and specilization is a big factor for me. Nice to see this.

* Cleaner Technology "tree". (I) had a fairly complicated technology tree. (II) will have a much more linear technology tree with the focus being on different categories of technology (Weapons, propulsion, economics, culture, etc.).

Uggghhhh.....I HATE simple tech trees. HATE THEM!! (I disagree that GC even had a complicated tech tree to begin with. Simplifying it....Uggghhhhh)

and much more

Well that it's. Several steps in the right direction, and a few steps in the wrong direction...this is besically what I'm talking about. It seems for everything someone does that I like, they also do something I don't.

[fantastic flying froggies]

As a sporadic yet avid player of space 4X games, I will be following this closely...

[Eaglesfan27]

Space 4x games are one of my favorite genres, I will be following this closely as well.

[RendeR]

I love the genre, but quite honestly have yet to see a single game that could keep my interest past 30 minutes. GC looked great, but was so rediculously micro-managed that I couldn't look at it after 10 minutes.

The tech tree may be simple, but it was terribly confused and not at all user friendly. I actually look forward to an easier to use interface for this in GC2.



When I was in the Navy two friends and I literally made up a universal sim game on paper. we wrote down every single sci-fi technology we could think of, came up with a rating system for planets and moons and asteroids and used that rating to decide what income we would recieve from them once colonized.

Ships were designed using the Renegade Legion Interceptor and Leviathan ship design systems. We planned to use the Centurion system for ground battles too, but we never really got that far. I'd love to rebuild that game as a web based interface, but A) I'm not that good a programmer and B) I've all but forgotten everything we ever did =)

I still have the construction rules for those games though and always have enjoyed designing ships and fighters and entire fleets of warships....if Only I had a use for them!

anyway, its late, I'm sleepy, nite all!
Ren

[sabotai]

First topic....

Technology Trees

The heart of many 4X games, especially Space 4X games. The technology tree is very important in helping to shape a race's identity. which type of ships they build, how they supply their worlds with resources, how they obtain resources to begin with and how well it does all of these, and many more. A Space 4X game just isn't a real Space 4X game without a technology tree.

Every game I have played has implemented the technology tree in one of two ways.

The Tech Tree

Literally, a tree. If you map it out, it looks very much like a family tree. Technology X leads to being able to research Technology Y and Technology Z. This is probably the most common form a technology tree found in 4X games. Civilization, Alpha Centauri, Space Empires and Galactic Civilizations use this kind of tree. (I realize that the first two are not space 4X games, I just threw them in to illustrate that all 4X games usually use this form of tech tree)

Group Value

Basically, what this is, is that each technology is assigned to a group. For example, Nuclear Torpedo is assigned to the Weapons group. A player invests a certain amount of money/resources into the group called Weapons and eventually, you'll discover the Nuclear Torpedo and will be able to use it. Stars! and Master of Orion 3 both used this form of tech tree.

My Opinion

I think The Tech Tree is much better than Group Value. With Tech Tree, you have much more control over what it is you will be researching.

Of course, The Tech Tree does have a disadvantage. In the case of MOO3, you are able to invest a portion of your budget into each group. You can put 15% into Economics, 20% into Social Science, etc. This is far more realistic. No nation is ever just researching ONE thing.

I also like the idea of having a scale to a technology. What I mean is I like having, say, a value of 3 in Weapons. Except Weapons is FAR too general.

My Idea

I propose that the ideal tech tree is a Tech Tree in nature, but each technology is given a scale.

For those who have played Eve Online, each player is given a scale of 1-5 in each skill. In order to gain and train in other skills, you have to acheive a certain rank in another skill. For instance, you have to gain a skill of 1 (the lowest) in Drones in order to be able to learn Mining Drones. Some skills require a 2 in another skill, all the way up to 5.

For those who play WoW, you get a talent tree. Some talents require full training in one talent in order to start training another talent.

This is the idea I'd like to bring to the technology tree in Space 4X games. I think not only will it give the technology tree depth, but also go a long way into helping nations create distinct identities.

Say I have a nation and I want my main battle tactic to be big ass ship with long range weapons. In most Space 4X games, I would have to research many unneeded techs in order to acheive it. Mostly the same techs you would need to research in order to acheive an identity far different from mine. The thing is, it would make sense that we would need to because most of what you and I want to do require the same basic technologies.

And that's where the problem really lies with The Tech Tree. The basic tech is all there is. Rocketry -> Short Range Missles -> Long Range Missles. (Example of a small section of a tech tree). It says nothing as to how well either of us does these things. If you want to specialize in Short Range Missles, you're done half way, but once I research Short Range Missles (which I need to in order to get to Long Range Missles) I will be just as proficient as you in using and building them. But I keep going and get Long Range Weapons. Now, I have Long Range Missles and you have your Short Ranged ones. But, if I so easily decide to, I can throw on Short Range missles that are just as good as yours on my ships.

But, if the tech tree looked something like:

Rocketry
Short Range Missles (Requires Rocketry 3)
Long Range Missles (Requires Small Range Missles 1)

It gets better. How? Well, at face value, it looks the same but now we have a scale. Of course, in order to have long ranged missles, I'll have to have short ranged ones too. We had to learn how to build a plane that could fly 100 feet before we could build one to go 100 miles. Some thing here.

But here's the difference. I don't care about Short Range Missles. But let's say you do. They are vital to your strat. So you keep researching them. After awhile, our techs could look like this.

Me: Rocketry 3, Small Range Missles 1, Long Range Missles 4
You: Rocketry 3, Small Range Missles 5

Now, while we both have Short Ranged Missles, yours will be far superior to mine, as they should be.

The Conclusion

Space Empires IV does their tech tree much like what I described above. They technically have scale to each tech in the game and they allow you to research multiple techs at the same time.

The major problem I have with the SEIV Gold tech tree is that the scale is not uniform across the board. Example: Propulsion goes up to 12, Ship Construction goes up to 9 and Base Construction goes to 3.

Now, the only way to know that is to have the entire tech tree visible when you start the game. I think that is a mistake. The value scale for the techs should all be the same. Propulsion, Ship Construction and Base Construction should all go up to 5 or 10 or 15 or whatever. It should all be the same scale.

[cubboyroy1826]

Since i am looking to pick up one of these types of games i figured i would give it a bump.