Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

simultaneous:
All orders are given and then carried out. Laying Sats., mines and loading transports along with fighters, are not open to mixing and managing their content. The computer will load a transport with no reguard to type or size of the units. So if you wanted to mix Armor with Infantry you could not specify the mix. If you wanted to lay Sat's out with say 1 Sensor and 49 Defense sat's, you'd have to load the exact amount in the transport.
Movement is carried out with certain functions being regulated to the AI as far as reaction goes. A ship given an attack order will do it's best to attack the target. A specific target must be specified. Battles are all run by the computer, so you will have to designate strategies to the AI to run for you.

Turn Based:
Lets you customize your loadouts and you can unload 1 unit at a time or launch. Since no other ships will be moving, you can bypass ships/fleets you don't want to engage. You can fight your tactical battles which gives you a huge advantage over the AI.

These are just a few of the differences. There are many more that I will let you find on your own. That's the best way to learn!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

You can load and transfer individual units in simultaneous.
The GUI is just... "sub-optimal"

Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

I am doing some prototyping of a pbem game (no AI)... and am leaning towards an open map but coordinate based (no hexes). This should give the most amount of flexibility in terms movement. Hyperspace/jump gates would be the preferred method if a race so chooses to pursue that path. Combat would be all about range's rather than being on the same hex.

Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

The mega-stack fleet size problem, should be dealt with as a function of command efficiency, supply issues, and other factors leading to "diminishing returns".

I find the strategy of turtling counter to the belief in warp point strategy superiority. One could just as easily claim that making a mega-stack fleet is 'surrendering' as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

Megastacks had inherent limitations in SE4, since when you got too many ships, they'd start blocking each other from moving optimally.

And with short range guns, there is only a small number of ships that can shoot at any one target at a time.

With SE5, they simply stack up in the same location, forming an Übertower of doom and lameness.

Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

I want to see big stacks have friendly fire problems.

Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

We first need combat AI or physics that will prevent or avoid overlapping...

Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

In stars!, there were sensors with ranges into the hundreds of light-years, stealth, mines which could cover hundreds of light-years...

...All of which combined meant that if someone sent an uber-stack of doom, your mines would force them to either slow down or take damage and you could attack their space with smaller, spread-out fleets, resulting in a MAD-like situation.

Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

A good reason to have "Command" ships with special "Command Bridges" on them. Each would have an ability to control so many ships. While fleets could still stack, each would be a stand alone entity.

Re: Ideal 4x Travel
 

AOE weapons would quickly discourage stacking fleets.