Author Topic: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter  (Read 11518 times)

Offline Echo35

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,703
  • More turrets! MORE TURRETS!
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2012, 01:55:15 pm »
So which of the MOOs was the best on your, guys opinion?
1.

2 was also really good, but the amount of bogdown in mid/late-game could be crushing.

I actually kinda prefer 2. The individual planet management gives it a much more personal feel than bumping sliders around, and the leaders are wonderful (Enough of an impact to matter but not so overly complicated that you really need to micro the crap out of them). Plus I really didn't like the "one star is one planet" representation of the first.

Also I'm a space empires fan so don't tell me MOO "bogs down" :P

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2012, 02:00:02 pm »
Also I'm a space empires fan so don't tell me MOO "bogs down" :P
It does.  SE just moves on from "bogged down" to some other descriptor, probably involving a singularity.  Not for lack of interface power-tools (some pretty good ones there, actually), but simply for sheer scale and still having individual-object-level controls.

I don't see it so much as a flaw, as that I want to be able to express my will to the game's interface such that my turns are not consistently taking more than 10-15 minutes :)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Echo35

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,703
  • More turrets! MORE TURRETS!
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2012, 02:03:39 pm »
Also I'm a space empires fan so don't tell me MOO "bogs down" :P
It does.  SE just moves on from "bogged down" to some other descriptor, probably involving a singularity.

What? Sorry, let me retrofit my fleet of 5,000 drones, hang on a sec.

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2012, 07:55:14 pm »
MMmmm yes I really did enjoy SEIV.

Speaking of, one thing I havent seen reproduced nearly well enough - Mobile shipyard ships. those were awesome. Nothing says wormhole defense like multiplying numbers of starbases. (or, realistically, starbases that built their own fleets, minefields, and fighters.).

The one thing I didn't like about SEIV was how slow the battles felt, particularly when numbers got larger. The battles were amazing, dont get me wrong, particularly liked the way missiles worked actually. The combat just didn't scale very well. (and fighters were really annoying to actually manage :\ )
Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit

Offline Volatar

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,055
  • Patient as a rock
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2012, 08:50:58 pm »

Speaking of, one thing I havent seen reproduced nearly well enough - Mobile shipyard ships. those were awesome. Nothing says wormhole defense like multiplying numbers of starbases. (or, realistically, starbases that built their own fleets, minefields, and fighters.).

I loved creating a mobile shipyard fleet in that game. Felt so awesome to retreat my fleet just behind the front lines and repair them right in space.

Offline eRe4s3r

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,825
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2012, 09:26:43 pm »
What the 4x genre game of the decade needs not to suck (And sorry, but if it does not have at least half of this, it will suck)

1) Several levels of abstraction of scale both in terms of fleets and planet management. Without constantly shifting abstraction layers, and with that an automatic removal of all Multiplayer functions (because shifts in scale would not work in MP unless someone comes up with a superb explanation how a fleet of 60000 super planet destroyer ships loses against a single star-base...)... or how someone playing on the "build 1 ship at a time" layer has any chance against an empire that builds 5 thousand ships at a time.

2a) Complex SP campaign structure that incorporates said shifts in abstraction layers with a proper dynamic story. Complex long-term consequences of choices (particularly with alien species that you meet)

2b) Hero Character that represents the player. Levels up over games. Vital because.. nothing would be more epic than standing on the flagship as YOU in hard-core mode (dead is dead) in the final battle.

3) Complex combat system, somehow abstracted of course, that takes into account admirals with many personal perks and traits (Total war style) for large fleets sub-commanders and for super large fleets a uber-commander. Maybe even the emperor (or Minister of Warfare) himself. (with minor chance to lose them all ,p). See -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaPl4DSFUQI for how to do it. ENTIRE Fleets are commanded in largest abstraction layers, multiple fleets = multiple units. Facing, weapons, special attacks or tactics....

4) Proper border system and
planet invasion/defense
system invasion/defense mechanic
Whatever one defines as proper there ;p

5) Intelligent research system that simulates that development of technology is not linear.

#
In terms of abstraction, the gameplay should be slightly different for each abstraction layer in order to simulate "commander of 1 ship" vs commander of 5 colonies vs commander of the intergalactic super power of doom. Each layer should have something to do. Think SPORE.. without dumbed down gameplay ;P

Maybe I am getting jaded but just doing MOO2 all over again is not gonna work. MOO2 was good.. for a game made in a time where the 4x genre consisted of ... Ascendancy (Which was better than MOO2) and Moo2....

Nowadays, if you don't do something unique with the genre.. then there is no point in doing it at all. And the 4x genre direly needs someone with a clue about not just game making but about the failings of 4x games in general. Just looking at any recent 4x game makes me sad sad sad. Everything is more or less the same. One might as well just play 1 to have played them all.. only difference is how many bugs and broken game elements you find that were designed to work with 20 ships, not with 200 or 2000....
Proud member of the Initiative for Bigger Weapons EV. - Bringer of Additive Blended Doom - Vote for Lore, get free cookie

Offline Volatar

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,055
  • Patient as a rock
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2012, 11:23:44 pm »
Quite the post you have there. A very thought provoking one as well. As a fellow lover of 4X games (yet also see that they all fall below the mark) I have to discuss this with you. Many of my points will simply be echos of yours, but I feel I need to make them anyways. You have a bunch of great ideas I have never considered before.

1) Several levels of abstraction of scale both in terms of fleets and planet management.

Yes please. I think 4X fans will all be on board with this provided it is done right. The genre for a while has had a problem: It needs to simulate every ship, yet scale to thousands. You need to be able to control the first border skirmishes with single ships, all the way up to fleets as big as the entire production of the map. You need an AI that can handle the Economy just as well as the player, so he never feels he needs to micromanage every little thing to get the best performance.

Without constantly shifting abstraction layers, and with that an automatic removal of all Multiplayer functions

Annnnnnnnd you have destroyed any chance of the game you want ever being made in your second sentence. Back in the days before the Internet was always-on it was totally cool to make SP only games. These days, if you can't play with your friends, people don't buy your game. Human opponents are always the most challenging ones anyways, as well as the most fun, so why deny that to a game?

(because shifts in scale would not work in MP unless someone comes up with a superb explanation how a fleet of 60000 super planet destroyer ships loses against a single star-base...)...

Shifts in scale don't necessarily mean the computer has to abstract battles out to just numbers and dice rolls. If you are playing a turn based game there is a boatload of processing power at your disposal when it's time to compute turns. Use that, and actually simulate battles. That should result in no weird results.

or how someone playing on the "build 1 ship at a time" layer has any chance against an empire that builds 5 thousand ships at a time.

Well, they don't. They fell too far behind the economic curve and lost. I don't see the problem here.

2a) Complex SP campaign structure that incorporates said shifts in abstraction layers with a proper dynamic story. Complex long-term consequences of choices (particularly with alien species that you meet)

Yes please. This would go hand in hand with proper diplomacy. Peace treaties and war declarations are not simple matters, and should be detailed and fun to work through.

2b) Hero Character that represents the player. Levels up over games. Vital because.. nothing would be more epic than standing on the flagship as YOU in hard-core mode (dead is dead) in the final battle.

Heck yes. This would go hand in hand with the story.

3) Complex combat system, somehow abstracted of course, that takes into account admirals with many personal perks and traits (Total war style) for large fleets sub-commanders and for super large fleets a uber-commander. Maybe even the emperor (or Minister of Warfare) himself. (with minor chance to lose them all ,p). See -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaPl4DSFUQI for how to do it. ENTIRE Fleets are commanded in largest abstraction layers, multiple fleets = multiple units. Facing, weapons, special attacks or tactics....

Yesssss. I want this.

Also I want that game. Wish I knew Japanese.

4) Proper border system

I assume this is for it's interaction with civilians and trade and pirates and the like?

planet invasion/defense

Indeed this needs some focus. Taking a planet is no small task in well-written Scifi.

So many games skip the whole ground fighting thing and just Glass planets (and often easily recolonize them). Glassing is not a good thing. Even in the Formic War (Enders Game) they only glassed (well, worse) one planet. The rest they fought tooth and nail for, because we wanted to colonize them. With mortal beings, usable planets are a limited resource in the universe, and not to be wasted easily.

Conquering a planet of say, 10 million civilians doesn't require 20 million troops. It does probably require a couple hundred thousand though, and will require continuing troop presence for a long while.

It's far, far cheaper than having to replace all those people and infrastructure though. Incentivising this is the key I think.

5) Intelligent research system that simulates that development of technology is not linear.

Not sure exactly how such a research system would be shaped. Some elaboration would be cool. I wonder if your idea would fit with the story idea I'll put below.

--

So, you want your 4X to have story? Heres the first concept off the top of my head that could easily kick off a 4X.

Earth, 20whatever. World War IV (III was the Cold War) has concluded. Luckily most of the world had put up missile defense systems by this point, so it was a conventional war with only a couple nuke events. The countries of the world are all beat up pretty badly. All the continents saw ground fighting, and a lot of infrastructure has been destroyed. There is a lot of rebuilding to do.

Luckily the good guys won though, as congratulations player: you are Prime Minister of the new planetary government.

Day one of your rein? Not exciting.

Day two? Exciting. Aliens drop by and give you a nice book as congratulations for uniting your world.

Oh wait, did I say book? I meant Library. As in the whole thing.

Earth now has access to the entire Galactic Library. Where do your scientists get started though? It will take millions of man hours to go through the thing.

And as all technology goes, actually implementing knowledge is the hard part, and the Library is distinctly lacking in Blueprints and Patent diagrams.

Except for a few things. There DO seem to be diagrams for efficient interplanetary engines, and there is a whole section on FTL tech that the scientists already seem to be drooling over. They seem to think they can have us at Alpha Centauri within a year or two.

And go there we must, as it turns out our Solar System is short on certain heavy elements needed for most of the stuff in this Library.

Space will never know what hit it.

--

Exploring and controlling access to the Galactic Library would make the tech tree something unique I think.

Thoughts?

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2012, 12:38:21 am »
I see you both talking about this..

And then I remember something not quite traditional 4x, but still very easily fills your requirements: Egosoft's line of the X-Universe games. I think at one point it was marketed as a 4x game a long time ago..

Anyway, it fits pretty much everything you say up to about hero management (there are no 'hero' units or people or even you have you real stats), and then it completely falls apart at research.

(it also fails to accurately portray economy in any manner at all, although if I'm not mistaken a lot of mods have been worked on for stuff like that..)
Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit

Offline Volatar

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,055
  • Patient as a rock
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2012, 12:57:02 am »
I see you both talking about this..

And then I remember something not quite traditional 4x, but still very easily fills your requirements: Egosoft's line of the X-Universe games. I think at one point it was marketed as a 4x game a long time ago..

Anyway, it fits pretty much everything you say up to about hero management (there are no 'hero' units or people or even you have you real stats), and then it completely falls apart at research.

(it also fails to accurately portray economy in any manner at all, although if I'm not mistaken a lot of mods have been worked on for stuff like that..)

The X series is among my top games of all time. I have put stupid ammounts of hours into them.

And they are Space Sims. Not 4X's. I don't care what Egosoft markets them as. There is no diplomacy, nor technological advancement or choices. While yes you can expand and explore, you can do that in a lot of games. Heck, by Egosofts definition Assassins Creed: Brotherhood is a 4X.

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2012, 01:24:15 am »
Arguably, an incredibly primitive form of diplomacy - Do things we like, and you get reputation. Sure, there isnt bartering, no silly resources that are on some overworld map to control.. And yes, there wasnt a tech tree at all. (I believe that was the main problem I stated with eraser's definition of a 4x game)

Dont get me wrong, the main point of bringing it up was more as a "why cant we do it from this angle?" Can x3ap become a 4x game, with a little bit of effort? Quite possibly. Will it include the same level of overworld manipulation that something like SEIV or MoO had? Probably not.

However, saying there is no technological advancement or choices is a tad silly. You should know as well as I do that some paths are not as viable as others until you have an economic backbone built up - Running an m7m is virtually impossible without at least a moderate sized complex to pump missiles into it. And a computer that rivals modern supercomputers, if you ever plan on entering the system..
Is this really a true 'technology tree', with research and stuff? No, it really isnt. But it is a path of advancement, which is what a research tree is, abstracted.
And saying there isnt choices? The entire game is based around choice. When youre stuck in an open world, everything you do is choice. Everything you acquire is by choice.. I am confused at what you are trying to say there.

If I was really wanting to grasp at straws, id say that training marines is akin to researching xenon tech. Without spending lots of time and currency 'researching' op boarding parties, youll never have xenon capital ships. That certainly sounds like a technological advancement of some sort.

Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit

Offline Volatar

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,055
  • Patient as a rock
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2012, 02:14:25 am »
It's all a bit moot though with the direction they are taking X4. They are going away from many of the 4X elements.

Offline eRe4s3r

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,825
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2012, 08:33:31 pm »
That doesn't have to be a bad thing.. I always thought x3 had a lot of potential as a real space sim with story and not so much as a sandbox that's filled with a lot of nothing and a broken (and totally flawed) economy. x3 is not a 4x. The entire universe in that game is a facade, it neither responds to your actions nor do your actions influence it. (Well, apart from the END GAME actions, but even that amounts to destroying stuff)

Quote from: Volatar
Shifts in scale don't necessarily mean the computer has to abstract battles out to just numbers and dice rolls. If you are playing a turn based game there is a boatload of processing power at your disposal when it's time to compute turns. Use that, and actually simulate battles. That should result in no weird results.

To be fair, that is a good point. If done right a shift in abstraction layers COULD be possible in MP, but you'd have to design "inter-connection" systems between layer shifts. Maybe that a very weak player becomes a part of the stronger empire.. but no idea how that would work with MP... ;P Maybe as a sort of forced alliance or die deal.

Quote from: Volatar
I assume this is for it's interaction with civilians and trade and pirates and the like?

Borders are first and foremost the expansion feedback. And empire that mastered FTL travel has certain force projection methods. That means it usually can detect incursions by enemies before they reach anywhere. The border is simply that vs where the force can be projected to.. this is mostly research and design dependent. A true "influence" range border (like so many 4x games have..) is completely pointless. Realistically speaking, empire influences only spread via propaganda, war, or trade (or migration). And then only to planets. That means you have influence in planets and on stations, but not literally in space. Unless you have a ship in range ;P

When borders meet with other empires there should be an automated DMZ zone declared where the force projection meets. Specific math goes beyond me, but it needs to be so that stronger enemies have larger DMZ zones. In those everything (civilian) goes. Military actions would lead to a causa belli, and possibly war.

Quote
Not sure exactly how such a research system would be shaped. Some elaboration would be cool. I wonder if your idea would fit with the story idea I'll put below.

Actually, now comes the point where I destroy the hopes of any "want to be" 4x developer.
Research is part of race diversification. Humans research according to a random chosen back story (1 of which your story would represent, Galactic Library, needing to waltz through trillions of documents sorted in an alien system) and this changes how technology is acquired (and includes stuff like salvaging/trade as a general +)

Secondly, acquired technology is not usable technology. Production/Prototyping is again dynamically chosen for race diversification (meaning, every race has other ways for this). In best case, research focus is chosen but how this technology turns out as something you can use is scripted together from a set of variable story pieces. Except I mean it like.. how the project proceeds, how the applications are chosen etc...

Basically, a space empire will not suddenly switch out it's super mega lasers of doom with super mega rockets of doom. Unless they merged with a species that has mega rockets of doom. Development is thus guided along certain lines, but random in the sense that everyone has the potential to reach the top-of-the-line weaponry.

Race diversification is the big thing I forgot. The races you can meet should be different. Some should have some connecting traits, and this plays into the story with choices. To make an "Ender Saga" example, the buggers (or the hive queen) can be integrated as part of a colony or (very late, very hard to get situation) a cooperating empire between 2 races.

Finally, these story driven events SHAPE a race. Your race at the start of the game is NOT the race you will have at the end of the game. To continue my example, humans may gain telepathic abilities from being close to hive queens over the millenia, allowing them to see through the eyes of workers and warriors with guidance from the queen.

As you can imagine, coming up with many different situations like this is mainly what making a 4x game is all about, imo. If you have not something in there that makes me think (Do I allow these potentially very dangerous aliens to live on a colony of mine, and what limitations/restrictions are set, how do you handle public opinion on this..) things like that are imo stuff that defines a space empire. That are the entire reason of playing a 4x game to me.

Of course, war, diplomacy, all that has to be connected. Some races might find this mingling of 2 drastically different races abhorrent. Some might find it a great thing to protect. A 4x game is supposed to be about exploration and expansion

How many 4x games do you know where exploration and expansion have any real gameplay changing influence? SOTS2 would be a strong negative example on how not to do it (and with it I mean really anything) ;P
Proud member of the Initiative for Bigger Weapons EV. - Bringer of Additive Blended Doom - Vote for Lore, get free cookie

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2012, 08:54:33 pm »
Race diversification is the big thing I forgot. The races you can meet should be different.
I feel like I need to mention where I have had the most fun, in SEIV, races are pretty much only a few minor actually unique racial traits (each player is given 2k points to 'spend' on racial traits pregame, with there being some negative traits that give points). That, and one other thing - Each race had their idea of an 'ideal' planet, (rock/ice/gas and oxygen/methane/co2/none?).

And thats it. Pretty much everything else is primarily what each race decides to research, for the tech tree is absolutely astronomically huge.

Similarly, back in Warzone 2100(not a 4x game by any means, just really like its tech tree), multiplayer games got pretty interesting. The tech tree is, also similarly huge. Link for fun: http://guide.wz2100.net/r/tech-tree

Thats the other main theory of racial diversity, id say -You can either have innate traits that make each 'race' different, or let the player decide what they want/need.
Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit

Offline eRe4s3r

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,825
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2012, 09:03:32 pm »
I admit designing the race I wanted to play as, and then leveling it up over many games was the only reason I even played SEIV ^^

This is imo why both Avatar and Race progression need to be in the game that "unsucks" the 4x genre. In theory, it would be nice to have the SE system in a 4x game but it also prevents you from actually having a real in-game race progression. Hence why I think it'd be better to make this around the Avatar (Or, his group of trusted companions.. hehe) so that you get a over-games progression as well as a race progression in the game.

But designing your own race is no problem imo, as long as the point system is well thought out...

By the way, thanks for reminding me to warzone 2100.. so many decent skirmish AI's now.. finally! When this went open source there was nearly 0 AI to be found.
Proud member of the Initiative for Bigger Weapons EV. - Bringer of Additive Blended Doom - Vote for Lore, get free cookie

Offline Volatar

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,055
  • Patient as a rock
Re: M.O.R.E. - 4x turn-based space strategy on Kickstarter
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2012, 09:32:42 pm »
Similarly, back in Warzone 2100(not a 4x game by any means, just really like its tech tree), multiplayer games got pretty interesting. The tech tree is, also similarly huge. Link for fun: http://guide.wz2100.net/r/tech-tree

Holy moly. I don't even know what that game is but I think I want to play it now.



That doesn't have to be a bad thing..

And I don't consider it to be. I never really got into the economy stuff anyhow. I put on mods that made it so I could cap capital ships without needing an economic backbone to do it, and pirated myself a fleet.

The only change I think I would prefer them to not make is restricting the player to one ship. I like my fleets. We will see what they do though, and what modders do. It might end up better. I can't say until I play it.

I always thought x3 had a lot of potential as a real space sim with story and not so much as a sandbox that's filled with a lot of nothing and a broken (and totally flawed) economy. x3 is not a 4x. The entire universe in that game is a facade, it neither responds to your actions nor do your actions influence it. (Well, apart from the END GAME actions, but even that amounts to destroying stuff)

Mods made the X3 sandbox dynamic. Building up a player fleet and using it to conquer empires was made possible. It's pretty sweet really. I hold X3 on the same level as games like Cortex Command or The Elder Scrolls. They are good but flawed games with powerful mod tools built in and great communities to take advantage of those tools.

Quote from: Volatar
Shifts in scale don't necessarily mean the computer has to abstract battles out to just numbers and dice rolls. If you are playing a turn based game there is a boatload of processing power at your disposal when it's time to compute turns. Use that, and actually simulate battles. That should result in no weird results.

To be fair, that is a good point. If done right a shift in abstraction layers COULD be possible in MP, but you'd have to design "inter-connection" systems between layer shifts. Maybe that a very weak player becomes a part of the stronger empire.. but no idea how that would work with MP... ;P Maybe as a sort of forced alliance or die deal.

Why do the shifts have to be sudden and clear? If done right the player shouldn't notice the shifts I would think. They should come naturally. This would allow for people to actually catch up instead of the game suddenly announcing "WE HAVE ENTERED THE AGE OF GALACTIC WARFARE" or whatever.

I am thinking in very theoretical terms here though. As so many games have demonstrated, designing a good UI is hard. Designing one that scales with the game? Harder.


Quote from: Volatar
I assume this is for it's interaction with civilians and trade and pirates and the like?

Borders are first and foremost the expansion feedback. And empire that mastered FTL travel has certain force projection methods. That means it usually can detect incursions by enemies before they reach anywhere. The border is simply that vs where the force can be projected to.. this is mostly research and design dependent. A true "influence" range border (like so many 4x games have..) is completely pointless. Realistically speaking, empire influences only spread via propaganda, war, or trade (or migration). And then only to planets. That means you have influence in planets and on stations, but not literally in space. Unless you have a ship in range ;P

When borders meet with other empires there should be an automated DMZ zone declared where the force projection meets. Specific math goes beyond me, but it needs to be so that stronger enemies have larger DMZ zones. In those everything (civilian) goes. Military actions would lead to a causa belli, and possibly war.

Ah. That makes sense and is cool. Would make the intelligence war too often neglected in games very, very interesting.

Quote
Not sure exactly how such a research system would be shaped. Some elaboration would be cool. I wonder if your idea would fit with the story idea I'll put below.

Actually, now comes the point where I destroy the hopes of any "want to be" 4x developer.
Research is part of race diversification. Humans research according to a random chosen back story (1 of which your story would represent, Galactic Library, needing to waltz through trillions of documents sorted in an alien system) and this changes how technology is acquired (and includes stuff like salvaging/trade as a general +)

Secondly, acquired technology is not usable technology. Production/Prototyping is again dynamically chosen for race diversification (meaning, every race has other ways for this). In best case, research focus is chosen but how this technology turns out as something you can use is scripted together from a set of variable story pieces. Except I mean it like.. how the project proceeds, how the applications are chosen etc...

Basically, a space empire will not suddenly switch out it's super mega lasers of doom with super mega rockets of doom. Unless they merged with a species that has mega rockets of doom. Development is thus guided along certain lines, but random in the sense that everyone has the potential to reach the top-of-the-line weaponry.

Race diversification is the big thing I forgot. The races you can meet should be different. Some should have some connecting traits, and this plays into the story with choices. To make an "Ender Saga" example, the buggers (or the hive queen) can be integrated as part of a colony or (very late, very hard to get situation) a cooperating empire between 2 races.

Finally, these story driven events SHAPE a race. Your race at the start of the game is NOT the race you will have at the end of the game. To continue my example, humans may gain telepathic abilities from being close to hive queens over the millenia, allowing them to see through the eyes of workers and warriors with guidance from the queen.

As you can imagine, coming up with many different situations like this is mainly what making a 4x game is all about, imo. If you have not something in there that makes me think (Do I allow these potentially very dangerous aliens to live on a colony of mine, and what limitations/restrictions are set, how do you handle public opinion on this..) things like that are imo stuff that defines a space empire. That are the entire reason of playing a 4x game to me.

Of course, war, diplomacy, all that has to be connected. Some races might find this mingling of 2 drastically different races abhorrent. Some might find it a great thing to protect. A 4x game is supposed to be about exploration and expansion

How many 4x games do you know where exploration and expansion have any real gameplay changing influence? SOTS2 would be a strong negative example on how not to do it (and with it I mean really anything) ;P

Ahhhhh. Not one tech tree. Many. Or rather, a random and dynamically changing one.

There are two options for constructing such a tech system: Massive, massive work by hand, or a hugely complex procedural system.

A hand created one is obviously a massive amount of work to be done, but would result in the best system.

A proceedural one would result in a tree that would take even longer to be fully mapped out, would take less effort, but would result in a lesser form of the idea.

--


I love this idea. I really, really do.

I don't think anyone will make it though.

Unless we do.