Game Design: Space 4x

[sabotai]

It's time to lighten the mood around here and start complaining and attacking each other on a different topic.

During this week, I remembered awhile ago we tried to do a community programming project. As the newcomers can see, it didn't even get off the ground. But considering the number of gamers/programmers here, I thought it'd be interesting to see how well we could come together and create a game design.

I remember when GalCiv and MOO3 came out, everyone praised the former and bashed the later (I actually liked both, that is after the last MOO3 patch came out and made the game playable). But neither really captured me. I was also a fan of Space Empires IV, but that one really didn't do it for me. They all had elements that I liked, but they also had elemtned I didn't like. Some people agreed with me that none of them were the "end all, be all" of Space 4x games.

So it got me thinking, could we, a community of gamers, programmers and, for some, big space 4x fans, come together to create a design for a Space 4x game that would be the "end all, be all" of space 4x games?

Here is a short list of things I like and don't like in Space 4x Games:

Custom Races:

MOO3 and SEIV had them, GalCiv did not. I don't like playing with a set list of predefined races. I want to mold the race. Almost like an RPG. I love Neverwinter Nights and can play through mods several times with different characters, roleplaying them a different way. The same applies to Space 4x games. In GalCiv, I could roleplay my race differently, but the interaction with the other races were all the same.

Enemy AI:

GalCiv did this wonderfully, the others did not. One area that all of the games have fallen short for me is that the enemy races all feel the same. All of the enemies just seemed bland. GalCiv's did not, but the enemies, who were always the same, reacted the same.

Random Events:

GalCiv had them, MOO3 and SEIV kind of had them. GalCiv did a great job with the random events. They weren't all just small, insignificant things. Some of the events were universe-effecting. If the races and enemies broke the replayability of the game, the random events fixed it.

I used to be an opponent of random events. I didn't want to have something big spung on me. Then, in one game, I was basically dominating the enemies in GalCiv, on my way to an apparently easy takeover of the universe. Then it happened. A random event gave rise to a new faction, and a lot of ships. Suddenly I was in for the fight of my life...and god damn it it was fun.

Ship Design:

An absolute must, IMO. SEIV had a great ship design. It was almost freeform. I loved designing all kinds of things in SEIV. MOO3 had it, but it felt limited. GalCiv, must like it's races, were all predefined.

Ship Design AI:

The downside...the AI for all Space 4x games for ship design is usually pretty bad.

Well, there are more but this is getting long and I'll add more later.

So how about it? Anyone up for an indepth, hardcore discussion of Space 4x design and want to try to design the ultimate space 4x game?

PS:

I know the question is coming, so I'll answer it now. the "4x" in Space 4x stands for "eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate".

[Bubba Wheels]

What was the name of the space 4x that had planets with cowboy hats and endless classes of ship designs. Very fast paced, fun as heck. Think it was originally programmed for the Apple. To me its all about ship design and function.

[mordhiem]

To me, 4X games are all about ship design and AI. Everything else is pretty much secondary.

[Greyroofoo]

to me MoO is still the best space 4x game ever created (and makes one great acronym to boot!)

[SirFozzie]

Stars! is better if you ask me

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

What was the name of the space 4x that had planets with cowboy hats and endless classes of ship designs. Very fast paced, fun as heck. Think it was originally programmed for the Apple. To me its all about ship design and function.

Spaceward Ho!

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Spaceward Ho!

Yes! Thankyou! Great game, fast moving, always had that 'one more turn' thing going on.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Things I liked about MoO3:

• Real-time combat system (initiative in MoO1 and MoO2 was incredibly overpowered)
• "Squad" system of fleet organization for ships in combat
• The way in which the "starlanes" organized movement without totally restricting it

Things I didn't like about MoO3:

• Arbitrary complexity introduced by regions on planets -- it made things more complex in a way that was overly restrictive and demanded too much micromanagement. I never really got the hang of using the development plans in a way that would make the governors develop the planets the way I wanted, and as the game progressed I would develop massive, difficult-to-reduce surpluses in minerals and food (which represented inefficiency that should have been directed to industry).
• The implementation of the real-time combat system. The restriction on number of ships in a battle was a problem in the late-game, although not an issue in the early-game. There were persistent problems with cloaking and sensors envelopes. The real-time system still had some of the click-fest disadvantages of RTS games. I would prefer to see a we-go turn-based system (like in the Combat Mission games) or a pre-battle order phase with AI admirals actually conducting the battle. Also, although the system was supposed to encourage the necessity of a mixed combat group, the limitations on fleet composition proved to be arbitrary impositions against a system that actually favored packing as many guns/whatever into the limited ships available as possible.

I get the impression that diplomacy was kinda hit or miss.

If I were reworking MoO3 to my own liking, I'd look to make some of the following changes:

• Combat is converted to a pre-battle order phase, with AI admirals actually carrying out the battle.
• No limitations on sizes or fleet compositions in battle. A "desirable" mix of forces should be enforced by game balance and/or ship design/cost restrictions (as it is in real life).
• Production limits are population-based, not land area based. Industrial and mining land area requirements are insignificant relative to farming, IMO (and I'd welcome evidence to the contrary).
• Mineral and food production operates on a curve, with the shape determined by richness/arability.
• Resources are traded on a market, with both fixed and variable costs imposed for transportation. This is a realism issue, although it might be sacrificed for gameplay. It's an opportunity to differentiate "centralized" vs. "capitalist" government in a meaningful way.

I don't know where it is, exactly, but there's a FreeOrion project out there somewhere. Also, one of the guys at OrionSector (which I haven't visited in ages) was working on his own project.