Re: Finite resources or not?
 

I think a key to limited resource games is playing them on ancient maps. That will make the planets a lot more valuable.

jm2c
Rollo

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

I haven't played too many finite resource games so I can't comment too much on differences of gameplay. I can, however, comment on the "realism".

In my opinion there is no justification for a finite resources game. It is completely UNrealistic to think that the creation of a few dozen dreadnaughts would deplete the resources of a planet. It is realistic to assume that some planets would be harder to harvest than others. This seems to be most accurately reflected in the infinite resource paradigm. The constant rate of acquisition in finite is what smacks of unrealism.

While I am aware that the resources of any planet are, in actuallity, limited, they would not be in the scope of virtually all games (usually Lasting less than a century).

Others may feel different but the very thought of my planet 'drying up' in so short a span wrecks my suspension of disbelief, and hence my enjoyment of the game.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

While I briefly played in one limited resource game, it wasn't long enough to really comment on the overall playability of those games.

One thing that I think hasn't been mentioned is the greater necessity of using Value Improvement plants. In addition, the Religious Nature Shrine assumes greater value, and Crystalline (I think) has a particular facility which gives it an edge in a long limited-resource game.

A limited resource game can put several strains on players that can make a more interesting game. Super-large fleets are more problematic. Resource converters/Recycling centers are more valuable, as are storage facilities (already mentioned). Players have to consider heavy mining (as in laying mines) much more carefully, and each ship and facility construction becomes a more weighty issue. Players will have to balance trying to overcome opponents with only enough force, because too much can make them over-extend themselves and suffer later and lose...and too little can cost them the game more immediately.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

Exactly cheeze. Well said imo. That is why I said infinite resource games are easier. if you don't have to really worry about storage limits and the like, then sure. Build 20+ massive base ship fleets, drop Mines and Sats everywhere with reckless abandon.

In my games, I am basicly building a fleet for each wormhole in my home system. That fleet is responsible for anything discovered beyond that point. If I build "back-up" fleets, I lose my arse in support. If I build too many radioactice extractors, my surplus is lost, and I may need it later. In this game, earlier on I did that, and had to go back and "recycle" a large number of them. Due to the mineral intensive support system, I didn't have enough of that, and far too much of the other. I had not researched resource conVersion yet and was killing my own planets with org/rad depletion. talk about hasty micro-management. I still had a need for those two, so scrapping "all" of that type of facility would not have been the right thing to do. balancing the M/O/R is a real see-saw challange. It was quite fun. infinite games are missing that aspect.

My current game is down to a two front war, but I have over 60% of the galaxies claimed (by colonization). Made some not-so-desireable race setting choices, so I think I am gonna apply the patch, and give it another go.

This Last game, was cluster/large. 3 of the AI's were in real good shape by the time I found them. another 3 were of mediocre challange, and not much can be said about neutrals. I colonize the system next to theirs and they go on a traditional "there goes the neighborhood" rant. I sign treaties with them, and they get mad. they attack, I graciously allow them to join my empire. I needed some methane breathers anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

All of that adds way too much micromanagement and makes the game less fun to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Finite resources is not necessarily _harder_, as much as it is more of a pain.

[ January 28, 2003, 08:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

perhaps that is the true debate. I enjoy micromanagement and more of it is not a problem with me. I had to deal with a multitude of complex things with my career also. I loved what I did and was good at it. The nice thing about a game, is if i choose to let some m/m slide for a while, it don't have repercussions on others.

The only true reality with a game. Is it comes on a pLastic disk, and becomes unusable if folded. I have to laugh when i read, or post myself, about things that are or are not realistic. Truth of the matter, is we have no idea what space travel will require or cost, nor do we have the technology to do it right. Hell, we havn't even "colonized" our own moon, let alone other planets, or intersystem travel.
And please hold the "area 51 is really a moonbase" theories. (altho that might make a good thread. lol)