Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Not everything of one race would be usable by another. That should be a very limited option.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I just hope that the data will be mod-able.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I'll have to tweak some controls! Moddable is what the game is about actually. To this end we plan to have abilities open-ended so there will be no fixed list of abilities, but it will be coded so that a Modder can insert any ability almost.

There is the possibility of Ground Turrets that can be moved into position (prior to combat) and colony ships and/or others moving /taking with them, prefab buildings to supplement those already existing WIP

Ops :doh:

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I think the idea of races being different and more suited to one planet type than another should be explored more as a gameplay dynamic. Furthermore this should throw up more interesting possibilities to enrich the game universe, such as incompatible tech trees, preferrability to colonising certain planet types over others (perhaps having several distinct alien types eg insectoid, reptilian and mammalian/humanoid, aquatic/squid?, crystalline/silicon based life or AI from a long dead race) just examples that conjure up very distinct tech types and unique civilisation and govt styles in my mind. If you have say a race of insectoids they could be more favourable when meeting other insectoid races, or even AI civilisations for instance, given their robotic sense of order.

Another example woudl be.. aquatic species having a totally different tech tree to terrestrial humanoids because of the different focus and evolution of their science, by the same token it would mean aquatic races would be more suited to waterworlds anything under 30% water 70% land (depending on planet size etc) would be counterproductive to a water based lifeforms technological development and infrastructural needs. Its also important to note that stealing from such aliens if your not an aquatic species yourself will pose some major limitations. But they would be excellent in providing powerful technology in water based sciences even if your humanoid or another race that needs some tech in say enriching a planet with water or terraforming.

I would appreciate it immensely if because of this diversity, we can see some races excelling in harsher star systems that humanoids would avoid more often than not. For example a nuetron star would be lethal to humans and practically a wasteland system, but for AI it could serve up some research bonuses to its science outposts and even provide some benefits to settling on a long dead planet that circles it. This actually makes me wonder if Star Legacy will make star systems spectrally accurate ie giving different star types in the game ranging from G type stars all the way to blue giants and beyond. This would alter the options of how many planets per star type if some accuracy is to be worked into the game.

I dont know how elaborate this games stories intend on being, ie Galactic Civs II, but i would enjoy some long standing rivalries to play some role in developing a history amongs certain races. This way providing a predisposition between race types or govt styles that help the player or hinder them when dealing in the game universe diplomatically and technologicaly (eg CIV IV). Of course this feature could be disabled. However anything to add a sense of history to the race your playing cant be a bad thing, I think alot of gamers appreciate their player race not just being some forgettable rehashed alien species that has been done to death. Even if its a bug eyed alien seen on every game to date, at least some effort put in making it distinct from the pile of other bug eyed aliens in games past ie, history, govt ambitions, planet type and unique tech tree.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

That is exactely what I want! Star Legacy gets more and more my attention. If there is any need for beta-testers, I would be interested.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

The one common factor we all had in starting this was to create a better, less restricted, more moddable game in the vein of SE4, with a similar theme and feel, but with an updated scheme. SE5 failed miserably here on many counts

Obviously we want to add new and unique content, but need to maintain a sense of the familiar too in order to draw existing SE fans as well as create new Star Legacy fans.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Ceating new TBS fans? Hmm... that will be very difficult, but that's another discussion. :sick:
I really appreciate that Alikiwi gives us a few more nice little details to mull over. :up:

Any news on a website, screenies, production progress, etc.?

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Timstone, did you see the link to the dev site Alikiwi posted earlier?

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

This sounds like it will be a superb game.

Im just wondering how colonisation of planets and hence star systems will take place. Will it be a kind of spore/light of altair type system where players allocate afew colonies on a single planet and go from there? Or will it be more like Hegemonia or Sins of a Solar Empire where each planet only gets colonised once and everything continues on from there with a population count gradually rising as improvements are developed?

Also I was wondering how the star systems would be represented visually. I was particularly impressed with Hegemonia, I mean here is a dx8 game that looks so stunning and outclasses many post dx9 games of the same genre. I just like the way the gas giants were portrayed and many were so beautifully rendered that some of the time I would zoom in and just stare at the planetscapes that were quite breathtaking. I also liked how there were various levels of habitable worlds, from acidic, barren, to terrestrial, and gaia world meaning very hospitable even more so than most earth like planets.

What dismays me is when you dont get a feel for the scope of your burgeoning stellar empire because the game makers played down the representations of the planets and made them bland and uninspiring. Anything along the lines of Hegemonia or even Nexus Jupiter incident planetscapes would keep me happy. And the more diversity in stars system layouts the better.

Cheer.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Thanks Fyron, I couldn't have said it better myself! :-)

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

MarcoPolo, I have Haegemonia, but the damn thing locked up at a certain point early in the game :-( Yes, nice graphics. Could well be like that, zoomable, scrollable system display. Planets are likely to have dual atmospheres with a major and minor element, eg Hydrogen/Methane etc.. Colonising will be done with colony ships, possibly building a colony hub as the first building. However, we are hoping to put in an element so it is possibly for TWO races to colonise at the same time, to provide a very serious challenge or interesting co-operative situation.

Now I have a serious question to ask, or opinion sort really. There are a couple of ways that ship hulls can be looked at (well more actually). I'd like to know what players think between these two options? Both allow for multiple levels (via research) of the same hull, giving bigger sizes each time. Option a) has variable levels (written next to them).
Option b) always has 3 levels
Please tell me which option you prefer, or c) Prefer neither!
First is smallest, last biggest in each group.

A) Scout x3 Frigate x3 Destroyer x3 Cruiser x3 Battleship x3
(Carriers) Escort Carrier x5 Fleet Carrier x 5
(Bases) Space Station x5 Starbase x5
(Transports) Courier x5 Transport x4 Freighter x3

B) Explorer, Frigate, First Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer, First Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Battleship, Heavy Battleship, Juggernaut.
(Carriers) Escort Carrier, Light Carrier, Carrier
(Bases) Defense Base, Base, Starbase
(Transports) Small Transport, Transport, Heavy Transport
Rescue/Tow ship

Note b) all have 3 levels (sizes) available.
Note 2, Both also have a colony ship (3 sizes)
I would appreciate your thoughts, a), b) or OMG c) Thanks ;)

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Thanks Fyron! I thought it was another project. Must have misread the posts, sorry. Woops. :doh:
I think I was too eager to see more about this project that I forgot to read the messages.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Yes, it is important and very beneficial to work elements of simulation into the game. Science fiction needs to be vaguely related to real-world science in order to be believable. The generic 'conditions' that work the same for all races in the SE series have always been an annoyance. It would be great to have even a simple system of atmosphere type, temperature range, and gravity level like Stars! had. Radiation level would be a useful fourth factor.

What about biological weapons and medical technology to treat plagues? Those should also be distinct. A virus that can kill mammals or avians living at earth-normal temperature is not even going to survive in the environment that supports silicon-based life (always very high temperatures and pressures due to the need for those condition to make complex silicon compounds similar to complex carbon life). That goes for natural (plague) or artificial (bioweapons).

So, there needs to be a sort of 'genetic code' for all species in the game, describing their characteristics. Very general things, like silicon or carbon based, and broad factors like humanoid, avian, insectoid, etc. And also distinct individual codes so you can target a species individually. At low levels, a bioweapon should only kill a single species. As biotech advances though, it could become more flexible and able kill a broader range of species if you want it to. But there should never be a universal bioweapon. There is just too much variation in the species included in a good 4X game.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Is there anything I can do to help out?

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Just a quick reply, as my question got buried. Yes temperature and gravity may be factored in but we dismissed Radiation as just not necessary and adding too much complexity to it, given numreous other factors being comsidered.
Whilst there will be 'generic' research, factors etc. across the board, there will also be trait and/or race specific things included in the stock game. Remember we will have at least one race that is Nomadic, ie, lives in space not on planets.
Having medical fields that vary due to each and every planet type (likely to be hundreds) is just not practical. Instead of one entry in a file, you'd need hundreds and then you'd need the coding to match it :shock:
But there will be virus weapons and infectious weapons....(No, not me, I didn't say that!)

Hm, thats a very interesting idea. But then if theres 15 races (which is expected), then you'd need 15 weapons! That's actually doable but I have my doubts I'd get permission, but I'll try.

For Atrocities mate, yes any HELP would be appreciated! I'll email you shortly :D

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

@Alikiwi...Yeh too much complexity is not necessary, its only worth integrating into the gameplay if it adds a level of detail and realism that can enhance the game experience and gameplay options.

@Baron... Alot of science fiction series come up with fantastic technologies and plotlines on how it would impact a society and what the implications of it would be as a whole. One of my favourites being the Xindi species in Star Trek Enterprise. The Xindi consisted of 6 sentient species all evolving on one planet hellbent on destroying earth. They spanned from Reptile, Insectoid, Aquatic/whale, Mammalian/yeti type, a 2nd reptilian race and an extinct avian race that was always referred to as the tragedy to the terrible legacy to the infighting many centuries ago. I to this day dont know why it was taken off the air, since every Star Trek series was flawless in their appeal. And STE was no exception, it was fresh, about the pioneering days of Starfleet and was still done with much creativity and imagination. I only regret it wasnt allowed to run its full course of 7 seasons and was ended abruptly at season 4. I have since not seen any series compare in its attention to detail and story execution. Not Stargate, Battlestar or the new V series, although they have their own styles and narratives. Its nothing compared to ST. Im hoping Star Legacy will be the flagship and example of games to come of this genre.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

A) Scout x3 Frigate x3 Destroyer x3 Cruiser x3 Battleship x1
BB's don't need expanded versions

(Carriers) Escort Carrier x5 Fleet Carrier x 5
Escort Carriers x3, Carriers x3, Assult Carriers x1(maybe 2)

(Bases) Space Station x5 Starbase x5
Could be expanded through the use of module attachments.

(Transports) Courier x5 Transport x4 Freighter x3
OK, but larger versions will always be the default build.

I like A
B) Explorer, Frigate, First Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer, First Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser,
Battlecruiser, Battleship, Heavy Battleship, Juggernaut.
(Carriers) Escort Carrier, Light Carrier, Carrier
(Bases) Defense Base, Base, Starbase
(Transports) Small Transport, Transport, Heavy Transport
Rescue/Tow ship

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

@Alikiwi> I like A as its well rounded and kept simple. But if the battles are to be waged in a (Gratuitous Space Battles format) then B is my winner. As it would allow for more weapon/sheilds/crew configurations as better ship hulls were researched by the player. Alot of custom ship fans would welcome this too who are into GSB and its modding ships for battle playability. And you could allow for disfavourable ship conditions according to the battle locations ie nebulas, meteor storms, gravity anomalies to handicap certain ship types so as not to create a race for biggest ship takes all kind of scenario. This would keep things from becoming repititious. Therefore maintaining a sizzors paper rock style battle strategy.

I also welcome the 2 species possibility on a single planet. Its makes for interesting diplomacy options. But can i suggest there being resource ratio information of how much each player is using of SAID planets resources? This could change as one population grew at the expense of another, or if one population was more politically stable (ie better entertainment facilities, less revolt)

Also would populating the moons of nearby planets coinhabited by 2 species be an option? Im wondering how cohabitation on a world with 2 different races with radically different requirements would happen? Say a methane breather vs an oxygen breather. Perhaps one a methane world the oxygen breather would be at a disadvantage since they would have to build domes but also the same would be if the situations were reversed and a methane breather wished to colonise a oxygen/nitrogen dominant planet.

Im putting up all sorts of scenarios in my mind, but the motivation for either race to colonise a planet not natively favourable to them would only happen for resources. My mind boggles on ways to acheive 2 races on a planet sharing resources. Perhaps there could be a population cap or population slots that gradually fill up as each race reaches their next population level. Ulimately creating a race to fill up the planets capacity before the other. However you could introduce strong ecological penalties if its done too carelessly and not sustainably or with little thought to energy and agriculture as a disincentive to just go out and horde worlds willy nilly.

Also non natives to that planet type and hence dome builders would grow at a handicapped rate since their colonising a world that neither favors them or directly promotes their race type. These handicaps would be less according to how close they are in similarity to the native race.

Just a thought...but will there be planet disasters? like comets or meteors, or radiation solar flares, that could throw a planet into a wasteland for a few decades? or cap its agricultural and population capacities? Just wondering, also an incentive could be to allow technologies that lessen this like biospheres and planetary sheilding techs or options to build underground or underwater as well. Providing this...or perhaps a slot system of colonisation would allow a typical terrestrial planet to have 5 default slots (representative of 5 regions or continents) later each slot would be able to open an underground or subterranean expandable slot for urban centres immune to solar or planetwide catastrophes. Or in the same vein after researching aquatic colonisation perhaps an ocean slot that would provide more agriculture and population options (of course on worlds with more than 50% water... less water may mean only 1 or 2 of the 5 slots would allow for such an option at all). In essence having 5 slots may allow for 5 races to contest a planet or cohabit one too, and peacefully if diplomatic and commercial perks are offered in the game as incentives. Of course early in the game uncontested planets would gradually fill up their respective slots with the natural progression and development of the native population. Slots could be unique in science/population/agriculture/commercial output depending on the race and planet type it is inhabiting... small barren planets would have less slots perhaps 2 or 3 while gas giants would have many more than terrestrial worlds but all geared towards mining/science with very little population perks. Even Stars could have slots dedicated to science/strategic defense or mining depending on the star type.

Science could be perked at 2 different rates, one being for military science and the other domestic. What I mean is that military scientific discoveries and their rates of growth would be proportional to the military resources gained and developed via slots in say nearby gas giants or debris fields (asteriod belts) that offer slots favourable with military perks. This would provide an incentive to grab and develop military science posts or military installations around gas giants, asteroid belts or stars as well, and not just make the game winnable by conquering planets. Domestic science would have more perks around terrestrial planets, with perhaps a space slot opening up for each terrestrial slot that is upgraded by a space elevator of sorts. Providing more space commercial options and improving the population standards of living (ie improving mortality and food output).(It would be possible to see entire star sytems being exploited for military purposes only if say a certain race cannot successfully utilise the terrestrial planets for population bonuses or is not worth the effort. Eg a rock/silicon based life form that gains huge population perks from volcanic planets, hence it will gain next to nothing on a serene waterworld with no volcanoes present. However an aquatic species might move in and not feel threatened to develop that systems population capacities, given it is not at war with the silicates and may even gain commercial perks if trading with the silicates in its vicinity.

Worlds that are already inhabited by primitive races or non space faring could offer domestic research bonuses for observing a prewarp species, by setting up a space outpost there. Or covertly inhabiting that world by means of its underground population slots, or a space slot that would be available initially. Perhaps setting up a nearby lunar science colony could also benefit with domestic science bonuses. However an agressive race could gain more military bonuses if enslaving that world and exploiting the inhabitants. Another bonus to taking the evil route would be as a food source if you are a reptilian or insectoid race bent on destruction that gains these perks from most forms of life that are not yet developed.

Well just some ideas, feel free to muse some more about them.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Not planet type, species. Each species in the game should have a unique biological ID. What's complicated about that? All you need is a bitfield, code it as a hexidecimal number and it can be put into a text configuration file. Yes, you would need to research medical tech specific to a given race in order to cure their plagues, and yes you would have to research a specific weapon then load that specific weapon to attack a specific race. That's called realism! ;) It might be complicated to setup but no more so than many other options in the game. Using it should not be complicated at all.

But then upgrading your ships should not be complicated either. One of the biggest failings of all 4X games I know of has been the cruddy interface. SE III was actually pretty good for the options it had available. But MM got intimidated by people saying "spreadsheets in space" and started trying to make the games 'look cool' instead of play well. I hope there will not be any ambition to 'look cool' and people will just make the game easy to use -- meaning use well known GUI conventions without trying to jazz them up and make them 'unique'.

How about drop down boxes for all those bioweapon options? As I recall there is an ability in SE5 to make stellar manipulations devices repairable only by spaceyards. (Or was that not actually implemented?) The same thing could be done for the bioweapon options. You can build a launcher into your design and then only set them at a spaceyard. This would keep you from having to refit every time you wanted to use a different weapon, and would be useful for more than bioweapons! With this ability you could finally separate missile launcher tech from missile warhead tech. Launchers could have improvements in speed or capacity or launcher size, warheads in damage amount and/or type. Install a given launcher and then you can select your missile type when a spaceyard is present.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Star Trek is a very bad example to use for "science and technology" in fiction. Trek is very arbitrary and inconsistent. They alter the science any time they want to make a story work. I would say Trek is actually not science fiction most of the time. It's more like soap opera with some techo-trappings. That's probably the major reason it has lost its lock on the market and now has so many competitors.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

@Baron Munchausen, yes star trek is not always technically accurate and perhaps the science is glamourised and stretched in order to draw audiences. But then again alot of the science fiction is psuedo science. Did you know that much of the science we take as concrete today is also not completely developed or understood. Thermal energy is something that could be developed in a very inexpensive way, but we do not use it. For some reason the powers that be would rather burn fossil fuels or invest in expensive nuclear solutions. Than develop volcanic energy or wave energy.

Anyways, on another note. I agree partly that functionality shouldnt be sacrificed at the expense of fancy interfaces. But im not an advocate either of interfaces that seem like one is launching a 4GL programming suite. It shouldnt be laborious. It should be fun and intuitive. I would argue for a balance between modern sleek interfaces but with more functionality. I also would argue that alot of the functionality can be tied into the design of the game so that you dont need to click buttons to support individual functions like establishing trade routes, instead these could become automatic as each colony or trading partner establishes contact with each other and certain facilities are developed as trading space stations as an example.

I would like to stress that the look of the game is sometimes what makes or breaks 1st impressions. I never got into SE5 because it looked very archaic and like something that crawled out in the 90s. If anything this game should try to aim for a polished look. Something that makes it seem contemporary. I think this game will be 2D if going by what i read, but i hope that means it will be on a 2D plane but not necessarily discount it being 3D rendered ala CIV IV vs CIV III. I also hope the planets will be zoomable and not static like GAL CIV II, and that the presentation style and sophistication of planet representation will at least be on par with Haegemonia Legions of Irons graceful beauty.

And if anyone can comment on my colonisation ideas for population carrying capacities, expandable planet slots when other upgrades are met, it would be appreciated. I think it would allow for a multi tier system of planet upgrading and improvements, while allowing for upto 5 colonising species on any specific world. Also what i didnt emphasise is that each species would have a different penalty or perk ratioed for each planets production, population capacity, science output etc etc depending on its species bio id. So if as i explained an silicon based lifeform tried to inhabit a waterworld with 90% to 100% water it would be sorely handicapped in its production and food. Where as on a volcanic planet it would thrive, but many others may not even be able to settle in such places. Of course with some gradual planet improvements any world would become hospitable but still not beneficial or even worthy of such investment.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

"And if anyone can comment on my colonisation ideas for population carrying capacities, expandable planet slots when other upgrades are met, it would be appreciated."

I will get around to it mate! Note, there are no facility slots, planets can hold more than you will every be able to build! Thats automated anyway (player can still take control), and is limited by population and power supply.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

@Alikiwi>"Hm, thats a very interesting idea. But then if theres 15 races (which is expected), then you'd need 15 weapons! That's actually doable but I have my doubts I'd get permission, but I'll try"

I think if you are going to make 15 races and still try to make things efficient and practical... then you should consider grouping the races into subtypes. They can still all have their own distinct history and advantages/disadvantages, but you could have 5 different subtypes, so as to make bioweapons and stealing technology possible amongst their own group.

For example (and im just brainstorming here) you could have these 5 subgroups

Category
1) mammalian/avian/humanoid warmblooded lifeform
2) amphibian/reptilian coldblooded lifeform
3) aquatic/squid/fish race lifeform
4) Insectoid lifeform
5) silicon-based/crystalline/rock based lifeform

Planet preference
Race Type 1)Earth like terrestrial planets, high nitrogen/oxygen worlds

Race Type 2)Early Earth type terrestrial planets give population advantages but can also live on Earth like worlds, artic worlds give population disadvantage whereas Race 1 species can still remain productive with minimal tech intervention on icy terrestrial planets.

Race Type 3)Preferrability for predominately water abundant planets, Anything less than 30% water hinders productivity. Can still build on such worlds but with lessened productive advantages and requiring tech upgrades eg water domed cities.

Race Type 4)Can live on Earth type worlds, preferrablilty to early earths and hot humid planets, minimal disadvantages on hostile barren terrestrial worlds. Minimal disadvantages on acidic, methane based planets. Can survive on volcanic worlds with only moderate tech upgrades.

Race Type 5)Suitablity to hot terrestrial planets with geological upheaval. Native to volcanic worlds or sulphur rich venusian planets. Some adaptive tech required for inhabiting terrestrial worlds or highly water based planets. Can survive on acidic, methane planets with minimal tech.

Tech tree discoveries can be stolen amongst same race types. Stealing from other subgroups not native to your own may result a partial gain. This being a slight boost in your own tech research that most relates to the incompatible tech stolen. For example stealing water based habitats from an aquatic race will result in lifting your own research to dome habitats by 25% depending on how far away you are in compatibility to that race. By the same token, stealing dome habitats tech from a reptialian race when you yourself are mammalian may prompt a more favourable outcome like 50% on your own scientific reseach.

This way ensuring the game realism and appeal than having generic settings for everybody :( I mean why make 15 races right? if they all have similar advantages and disadvantages to colonising or science and technology.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Er, all races would be different!
Anyway, how about this idea (not mine). No hull categories (no destroyer, cruiser etc), just select a 500T ship, 550T, 600T or whatever all available at the start, but limited by your shipyard capacity and NO research to get them?

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Thats quite a radical idea. As long as it doesnt become a mad dash to do a tank rush of sorts and dumb down the game strategy elements.

I personally prefer gradual and consistent research and development opening up new frontiers of space and hull types. As it gives a sense of progression and advancement. I figured all your races would be unique, going by the weird worlds game I played the other week. It seemed very meticulously done and with alot of attention to detail, each race having its quirks and setting to the sci fi universe. So i assume your aliens will be no less interesting and elaborate.

Well I liked Weird Worlds, the gfx were a pleasant surprise. And the short storyline quaint but satisfying. I am hoping Star Legacy will improve on that because I see the potential for a wholly satisfying game. The 2D battles that are 3D rendered work brilliantly so no complaints there. And the attention to planet types and star types is exactly what Im hoping for, so fingers crossed you guys will carry that through for Star Legacy. My wish is to be able to zoom into star systems like Haegemonia Legions of Irons and witness beautiful expanses of space with its gorgeous and meticulously rendered planetscapes.

Btw, I spotted another contender or competitor if you will, on the radar. So just FYI shrapnel dudes. Distant Worlds slated for 2010 release.

Peace.

http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2010...strategy-game/

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

yeah, i'd been keeping a keen eye on that Distant Worlds thing. its supposed to be coming out on the 23rd or some such, and i was fully prepared to transfer all of my affection to it. amazing looking gameplay, my favorite features from each of SE4, MOO3, and GC2. whats not to like?

sadly, i have learned that it has no multiplayer. at all. alas, better to have loved and lost, then never loved at all. lets hope Star Legacies delivers.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I'm not a big fan of "Real Time" games. I actually like to sit back and relax while I'm being brutalized by aliens! :doh:

How about starting other threads for discussions on topics such as ships, planets, races and the rest under their own topic?

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Yeh I second that motion :P Would be good to hear each theme discussed in its own right. Especially planet types and how resources will be obtained and managed.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Great, a new 4x game in the works. Bravo! :up:

I am a big Fan of Space Empire IV (but not SEV because of the real time combat and the IMO unnecessary 3D engine) and MOO2.

What I think the new 4x game should include is following:

-supporting modern monitors - this means mostly 1920x1080 or at least not much below. Reason: many people hat such monitors today and 2011 when the game appears, many more will have them. One of the main problems I have with SEIV is the low monitor resolution.

-BIG universe. with modern computers universe sizes with many hundred or even thousand star systems should not be a problem. There could even be multiple universes connected with "jump points" or so.

-several ways to travel hyperspace. SE had jump points. MOO2 had jump gates and normal FTL drive. I would appreciate not a single method for ship-travel.

-tactical TURNBASED ship-to-ship battles. Please no realtime! For PBEM or LAN games there should be a strategic combat resoluton option like in SEIV or MOO2. And make the battles large - no or a high ship cap per battle would be fine.

-ground combat. It would be fine and enough to have basic ground combat with fixed unts. Eg. just dividing infantry, drop troopers and tanks or so. More complexity is IMO not necessary, except you have an excellent ruleset behind it.

-the possiblity to build carriers. (like SEIV)

-easy economic rules. Please no hidden formulas. One of the strengths of SEIV and MOO2 was the possibility to calculate and anticipate economic values without having complicated and arcane mathematical formulas. Allowing too complex and hidden formulas and/or "intuitive" sliders etc. ruin the fun of a game for me.

-possibility to easy mod the game similar to SEIV. (one of the weak points of MOO2 which didnt allow this)


I dont need fancy grafics, I consider them nice but they normally dont contribute to my fun if the rest of the game is "meh". I would be content if the grafics are as good as in say MOO2.


If you do a game along these points, count me in. Then I am the first one who will buy it. :)

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Hey KlausD, welcome :)

I'll try to answer at least some of your points... maybe some of the other team members can fill in the gaps...

Modern screen resolutions: Yeah, I'm doing development on a 1600x900 screen, and we're trying to keep the game playable on as wide a variety of resolutions as possible, by using self-scaling UI elements, as opposed to fixed-size ones like in SE4 and SE5.

Big universe: I'm not sure what direction Ken has in mind for this, but my personal opinion is big universes lead to long, drawn-out games that get boring after a while due to the insane amounts of empire management required... Not to say we can't support them for folks who do like that sort of thing, but I really don't know what the plans are at the moment ;)

Several FTL methods: Yes, we're planning on having warp or jump "zones" in each system (enter the zone and engage the jump drive, and you start zipping off to another system with no way to command the ship until it arrives), but we also plan on having some sort of hyperdrive which allows ships to travel faster than light without being restricted by jump zones.

Turn-based tactical combat: Whether tactical combat will be turn-based or real-time is still up in the air, but if it is real-time then it's likely that it will be pausable with the option to auto-pause every so often so you get the best of both worlds.

Ground combat: I'm not sure about that really... ;)

Carriers: Seems pretty likely; carriers and fighters can really be thought of as an extension of the fleeting system, after all - fighters would just have coordinates in space relative to their carrier, just like a ship in a fleet would have coordinates relative to the fleet's coordinates in the universe.

Economic rules: Again, not really sure ;)

Moddability: Oh, yeah, you're gonna love this ;) We're defining mods as sets of XML files, and we've even got Python (well, IronPython) integrated for scripting! No arcane SE5-style script language... and I created a "script debugging console" which you'll be able to pop up in-game if your scripts are acting up :)

Simple graphics: Yeah, graphics are definitely going to be 2D sprites... no 3D required ;)

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Hi Ed
quote:” Turn-based tactical combat: Whether tactical combat will be turn-based or real-time is still up in the air, but if it is real-time then it's likely that it will be pausable with the option to auto-pause every so often so you get the best of both worlds"
Have you ever considered a system of continuous turn based mode like Heroes of Might and Magic V?
IMHO is the best turn based tactical combat system, beside it can easily model the eventual initiative advantage of multiples activations of swift smaller ships or fighters against clumsier bigger juggernauts.
Another question: is retreat from tactical ship to ship battles allowed (like SE3) or there is a turn number limit (like SE4)?

Thanks

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Sounds good.

Well, boring or not is IMO in the eye of the beholder and maybe to some users which dont have alot of time. But in my experience many 4x fans take their time to carefully complete even big games and traditionally dont care about the modern trend for immediate satisfaction. So it would be nice to have a game mode for those of us who love to play BIG and long games. :) IMO also the fact that Star Legacy offers big games with multiple connected universes would put it into a special position NO OTHER 4x game ever had. Such a feature is useful for marketing and an interesting unique selling proposition.

Thats great.

Well. thats not great. Even that you consider to make it real-time is a reason for me to drop-out. SEV was realtime and I hated it. The same with Armada 2526. I didnt like the realtime portion of the game and deleted it from my HD after one game. So I really hope you will decide to go against the modern trend and make it good old fashioned turnbased like the grand-masters of the genre SEIV and MOO2.

Are you not sure that you will include ground combat at all? Or make it rather simple? I hope the second. Eg. its absolutely necessary to have at least a token ground combat system. But it should be better resolved than SEIV small ground unit system, which was not very clear, what the Aaron meant with it. My take on the topic is that with a not very complex BUT clever designed sub-system for ground combat you should have a winner. Even easy and simple rules could be a challenge for designers.

So ground units could have
-a transport capacity (like in SEIV)
-combat value (maybe one for soft targets like infantry and one for hard targets like tanks)
-a empire should have a reason to invest in additional ground tech (to allow the purchase of advanced ground combat units) and planetary bombardement tech
-a terrain modifier. (like Sand-troopers in Star Wars)

Such a basic system would possibly be enough. No planetary movement, no extra rules are really necessary. A more complicated system is only good if you have an excellent ruleset to back it up. (not like SEIV - which ground combat came with a very weak rule set)

BTW: A good and useful ground combat system was for me SEIII.

Maybe I should elaborate what I mean with simple economic rules. SEIV and MOO2 economic system were better than ANY other economic system of any 4x game out there. Why? because you could calculate the planetary output in your head. Eg. in SEIV a mine produces xy metal modified by percentages. Thats a great system and very intuitive, because everybody with elementary school education can calculate percentages in advance before colonizing and after colonizing. In GalcivII it was the opposite. I never was able to pre-calculate possible outputs, so this was one of the reason why I lost interest in the game because the numbers were too hidden, too complex and too abstract and felt like constantly playing on cotton wool.

I hope this helped a little bit to clarify my take on the topic 4x games. :) In the last several years there was where several 4x games which came out but only one which was done 100% right and was able to get me hooked, CIV4.

The rest like galciv II, SEV, armada 2526 and whatever other had all the problem they had either a real time component or they had a cotton-wool over-complex economical or combat calculations.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I don't share KlausD's sentiment about a continuous (or real-time) combat. It's how combat should be resolved as it's the most fair system for all combat participants.

Now, that's not suggesting that it can't be done better than in other titles. For example, SE5 had a feature for automatic timed stops, which was a good. However, the downside though was that there wasn't an easy way where you could cycle through your ships to issue updated movement/firing orders during the stop.

Providing the flexibility to either run straight real-time or a range of timed intervals should cover off most player's preferences.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

"Fairness" is just an hollow word and its a straw man argument. In reality of game design it depends entirely on the quality of the ruleset if something is fair or not.

Or do you imply that famous turnbased games like CIV or MOO2 are not "fair" and fairness began exclusively with the advent of RT games several year ago? This would be an insult to the skills of designers of traditional TB games and an unqualified attack to the taste of any TB fans.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

To be fair to my comment, I only said that it was the most fair, which means only that the other systems are less fair, not necessarily unfair. I'm not sure how you can be more fair than to allow everyone's ships to move and fire at the same time.

Most complaints against real-time are not about the fact that everyone moves simultaneously, but rather that control is difficult and you can lose the aspect of micromanaging a combat, which is appealing for a lot of players.

So, make it the best of both worlds. At one end, combat can run straight time. On the other, you can approximate a turn-based system with automatic timed stops. The key for either is to have a good set of controls to make both satisfying and easy to work with.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

To expand on the timed-stops theme:

Remember a REALLY OLD game called "BEGIN"?

In Begin, you piloted a starship of the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, or Orions, and your AI allies and opponents would pilot starships too.

The game was essentially turn-based, but in a way real-time as well - there were ten (later expanded to 100 with the advent of faster CPU's) "phases" per turn. The game would execute all of those "phases" before returning control to the player for his next order (fire torpedoes, set a course, whatever).

Really, the only differences between real-time games and turn-based games are the granularity (RTS is finer, while TBS is coarser), and the ability to think as long as you want (RTS you can't, TBS you can). We're trying to merge the two - include the fine granularity of RTS, but leave in the ability to plot your strategy at your own pace like in TBS.

Thus, if we DO have real-time tactical combat, it will be structured such that the game host (or the player, in single-player games) has complete control over the rules for when players can pause the combat. If you don't like RTS, don't join a multiplayer game with the "autopause every X seconds" option disabled or set to a really high value, or with the "auto-unpause after Y seconds of strategizing" option set really low! There will surely be other players who like the leisurely pace - and why NOT cater to everyone if it's that simple? ;)

Since the main issue people (myself included!) have with RTS games is the inability to plot strategies, and there's no harm (besides extra bandwidth usage) in turning up the level of detail, I really don't see a downside to this plan ;)

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I don't see how you can practically run tactical combats in multiplayer games though - particularly those that are remote games.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I agree its insane to run a game like CIV IV as a multiplayer as is. Its just crazy having to wait for the other person to resolve his turns within a given time limit. Real time is the way to go, you could have a continual and steady push for resource gathering and economic advancement while still having a wholly satisfying 4X space game unravel in exciting and very unique ways.

Having a chess system per turn approach is unworkable in multiplayer because it ties up everyones time and makes for drawn out boring scenarios that drag on forever. You can still employ a Sins of a Solar Empire style way of resource gathering and planet hunting while still resolving battles in an intelligent way that may still be turnbased for those hardcore TBS fans.

But multiplayer games of this nature almost always lose audiences than secure more when the multiplayer system is poorly thought out and laboriously tedious. People want to be engaged in the atmosphere of the game 100% of the time and not just when their turn starts.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Did anyone here play the old Age of Wonders game? It had two modes of play: full turn based and simultaneous turn based. Of course, given the nature of the game, this was on the strategic map, not tactical combat map.

Simultaneous mode worked so that everything happened more or less in real time at the same time (all sides giving orders such as moving units) until everything was done, but things did not progress to the next turn until after everyone had hit "End turn".

This could be some form of compromise.

Want another example, X-COM: Apocalypse had tactical combat where you could select either real time or turn based and in the real time variant you could pause it whenever you wanted. Of course, it was a single player game. In MP, that would have to be implemented using automatic pausing at intervals.


Personally, I despise RTS combat most of the time, so if at all possible, there should be an option of setting up a game to use a fully turn based model or to use whatever RTS/simultaneous turn based/continuous turn based alternative is implemented.

If a full RTS with auto-pausing is to be done, it should have the possibility to pause as often as desired in SP mode. I would very much prefer to have a fully turn based tactical combat for SP and for hotseat games it would necessarily have to be that.

How do these ideas sound?

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

It depends how much understanding the game makers have about the basic mechanics of a good turnbased game. For example Edi said it already. If you ever played age of wonders, there where 2 different modes one traditional and one with simulataenous turnbased execution. So if the Age of Wonders designers (which where doubtless quite talented because the game was great) could program such a interesting turnbased mode, why not the Star Legacy makers?

Ever heard of changing mini-initiative? Or bidding turns? These are concepts for certain turnbased games to learn who comes next and how many units he can move till his enemy comes. Today the alternative concepts of turnbased game design is more evolved than 10y or 20y ago.

Or do you think that every turnbased game has always to be the same old Igo-Yougo?

Possibly thats the reason of your wrong perception of the socalled "unfairness" of turnbased games?

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Well, first of all. We need to know how movement will be handled. Then weapons fire. Seeking weapons movement! How will the AI process it's controlled ships?

How will PBEM combat be resolved if using RT processing? Too many unknowns to weigh-in on this. :doh:

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I think some confusion has crept in here...

I'm talking specifically about the combat module of the game, not the actual empire building component.

Star Legacy itself is intended to be a simultaneous turn-based game. That is, each player takes their turn giving orders to their various objects. Once finished, all player turns are processed together and movement/orders executed at the same time. This is the same format as simultaneous mode in SE4 or SE5, as well as other turn-based games. Except in Star Legacy, combat at this point would not be restricted to strategic resolution only, but you'd have the option of playing combats you're involved in.

I don't think it's really all that great for epic scale empire building games to be real-time. It becomes very difficult to manage in a time sensitive environment and adding co-managing systems doesn't really work out all that well because many players don't like to lose that control.

Again I never declared turn-based resolution as unfair, so I'm not sure why you've added the quotes there. I simply said it was less fair than simultaneous/real-time resolution.

Why do you think turn-based methods have evolved such complex mechanics? To closely approximate a truly continuous system right? For early turn-based games or their board game predecessors, it was difficult (or impossible) to do this, but nowadays it isn't.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

For reference, I was talking about the combat module here too, even though the AoW example was of the strategic map. There is nothing actually to prevent implementing something similar for a combat module.

Now, there are these things to consider:

While this is going to be a multislayer game, it will have a significant contingent of single player players.

There is nothing to stop there being both a traditional turn based system and a different version more suitable to multiplayer.

For a PBEM aspect, if it is included, there would have to be an automatic resolution option like the quick combat in Age of Wonders or the way things are done in Dominions 3, where units are given a limited script before being sent into combat. They act according to the script as best they can and depending on what they face, it can be anything from a crushing victory to total disaster.

There are multiple interests here that need to be balanced and it does not have to be just one or the other of two choices, since there are more. Being able to set combat module behavior from a dropdown menu or checkbox during game creation would answer these different needs and allow players to pick the best for any given game (e.g. fully turn based for SP, RTS with pauses or continuous turn based (ala HoMM5) or whatever else is decided on for MP).

This is a situation where you don't have a single silver bullet that is the Ultimate Truth for all situations.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I agree. RTS combat is not the way to go for a serious 4X game. I think the best although I would not call it a compromise is the "WEGO" system as found in the Combat Mission games. Orders/instructions are given in a turn and then executed for a certain time frame at which point they attempt to be carried out and you can't make adjustments unitl your next turn. The PBEM system of Combat Mission was also one of my favorite and could work I think for multi-player PBEM as in SE4.

But a more traditional IGOUGO system is certainly prefered over anything RTS or RTS/hybrid to me.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

While I'm wishing for random stuff how about the implementation of a simplified Z axis for the tactical portion of the game? More for the sake of game play than realism - if SL is to be 2d I'm thinking isometric sprites with an upper/middle/lower z axis. Something perhaps similar to the way different building stories were handled in the first two X-Com games. This would give the illusion of being able to attack from "above/below" and play for or against things like firing arcs and weapon mounts.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

I think it is always a tough one to balance as 4X games attract Grognards I think. In both SE4 and 5 I always felt I spent way too much time managing my empire in non fun ways and in this respect I would be willing to relinquish some control for the more simplified/abstracts RTS elements of a game like SOASE.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

The "WEGO" system can be emulated by the "autopause" system I've described; simply set autopause interval to, say, 10 seconds, and "auto-unpause" to an obscenely long or infinite delay ;)

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

All of those are literally attempts to make the combat engine approximate reality (which is intrinsically real time). "IGO-UGO" is about the least fair and balanced combat mechanic that can be implemented (beyond stupid dice rolling to approximate an entire battle). This is because one side gets to act in entirety before the other side. The solution is to approximate simultaneous action, by breaking up each side's forces into smaller groups that act in phases during a turn. Thus, you get various forms of initiative, bidding turns, and what have you. To make a better and better combat system, in terms of balance and fairness, one must break up these phases into smaller units. Thus, the ideal combat mechanic is one in which the gradations are as fine as possible. This allows as much simultaneity as possible. But as you add more and more complexity to the rules to continue improving the approximation of reality, you bog everything down and make the game harder and harder to play (just like the insane economic rules in GalCiv2). Going all the way to real time, continuous action serves to provide the most balanced and fair mechanic, due to the tiny size of the increments, all without bogging gameplay down with a huge morass of unnecessary rules.

The trick is creating control mechanisms that are easy to use. The only 4x games with real time combat that have really even come close are the far more RTS ones like Sins of a Solar Empire. Very few 4x game development teams are particularly competent in this area of game design, due to a glaring lack of experience. More effort needs to be put into studying the highly evolved control schemes of the big RTS games..

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

On the presumption that this is the thread where people say hello, "Hello!"

I loved MOO 1 and 2 back in the day, and would love to see an interesting space 4X game appear. I mostly play Dominions 3 at the moment, and I'm very interested in seeing more PBEM 4X games available.

Re: Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!
 

Firing arcs are not needed. This is a 4X game with combat being ¼ of the game. If you want to have complex combat systems just mod in a combat resolution generator from a stand alone combat simulator. Then enter the results into the game rather then over complicate a game system with resource heavy functions.