Stars! comparison
 

Muliplayer turn-based strategy games are my choice. I have been playing Empire (Deluxe) for over 15 years. I have been playing Stars! for 4 years. I have recently found a few features in Stars that I think can destroy a game, so even though I believe in sticking with and mastering a game, I want to consider trying something new.

How does SE4 compare to Stars for multiplayer?
Any other games I should consider?

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Play By Web is probably the biggest multiplayer feature for SE4.

You can upload and download your order and turn files right from the web interface, or you can have the server email your turns to you and you can reply with your order file attached.
You can of course do it manually if you want, but PBW automates all the busywork of collecting and distributing game files.

Hotseat play is great fun if you can find a partner or organize an SE4 night with your friends.
Sequential turn with tactical combat vs your buddies can be quite entertaining. The ability to control all your pieces during combat head to head with another human is great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The demo should give you a good idea of the interface and some gameplay action. Definitely try it out, and stop by to visit the PBW site

Re: Stars! comparison
 

hi, welcome to the forums.

cheese? according to a tally i did, cheese makes better curency than gold!

in hotseat, you can fight tactical against another human? neat!

Re: Stars! comparison
 

I played Stars! for ages (VGA Planets before that -- even wrote C code to create special maps etc.!), and really loved it. In fact, I even a three-way team game against the Jason Cawley and his friends, and won! I think it was because our slow start out of the gate led him to underestimate us -- I doubt I could win again.

I now play SEIV gold exclusively. One big difference is that in Stars! you simply move through space. In SEIV, systems are connected by wormholes, which has major strategic consequences. Also, I think SEIV is better balanced (though I would rule out the use of the Talisman).

John

Re: Stars! comparison
 

*points to sig*

I've played 1000s of hours solo play, and I'm about to get my first *** whupin' in stars multiplayer this weekend. Stars!, SE4 SE3, SE2, and Alpha Centauri are the coolest space scifi strategy games IMO, only beatem out by the crown champions MoO and MoO2.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How do you do tactical combat in multiplayer? Is that in a hotseat game?

SpaceBadger

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Yes. Head to head against another human would be hotseat for combat. Real fun. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I remember wooping on my room mate in the original SE4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And I would have to say that I think SE4 is a better game than Stars. I loved Stars and played it for a year or two but haven't played it since I got SE4 Gold. I think SE4 Gold would have been a competitor for Stars SG if it had ever come out. Sadly it hasn't and probably won't and Stars! by itself really can't compete with SE4G in my opinion.

Stars! has a few features I would like to see in SE4 but SE4 has many many more to make up for it. I'm feeling too tired to get into it point by point right now...

Well... try the demo and if you like that then the real Version is even better (several patches more advanced than current demo I believe).

Just my opinion and thoughts on it.

[ October 18, 2003, 01:20: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Stars! had better race and planet design. The way Stars! handles planetary conditions may not be ideal (I still don't understand how a planet with too little radiation can be inhospitable to your race), but it's still miles ahead of any other game I've played.

That being said, I think SEIV has the advantage in every other area.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

i think our bodies rely on a certain minimum background radiation.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

There are studies that show too little radiation can increase the risk of cancer.

The graph of risk vs radiation looks like a rounded checkmark.

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/00...41890000_2.gif
from
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...890000&catID=2

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Those graphs show no error bars. It is a no go for a real, serious science. Also, there is no mentions of sampling sizes.

However, if it is indeed statistically significant, I would really like to see the theory behind !
-----

Edit - I checked the original papers and it may reaaly be a case. Hmmm... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Moderate drinking is benefitial to the health. It is a very well established fact now. But how about low-dose smoking ??? Is it possible that one or two sigarets per months can actually make you better off ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ October 20, 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Oleg:
As far as questioning the relevance of the graphs and such, please realize that you are not reading the published article, but merely a sound-bite type of summary.

As far as the soundness of the theory... well it has been known of and used for millenia. ancient herbal remedies often included noxious ingredients that, if used in the right amount, had the opposite effect of what you would otherwise expect. Another great example is the practice of using leeches as a curative. Leeches were not used out of ignorance, they were used because they worked, the barbers at the time just didn't know the actual reason why. Having several wounds, superficial though they may be, throws the immune system into action. To greater action that is required to counter the feeble leech attack. The now aroused immune system would then confront whatever other ailments there were (worms, sniffles, the black plague, etc.). Therefore leeching (and bleeding in general) became a general cure-all because, in some ways, it was.

This type of effect is especially apparent with chemicals. The japanese practice of eating blowfish (one of the most poisonous creatures in the world) is so dangerous not because it is hard to remove the edible part of the fish, that is quite easy, but because it is hard to leave in just the right amount of poison. If the corect amount of neurotoxin is left in then the dish provides a pleasant euphoria. The same goes with strichnine, a small enough amount can get you high. Same with nicotine. It is one of the most deadly poisons we know of (it is often used as rat poison) yet in small enough doses it can be pleasantly addictive (and atually acts as a memory enhancing drug due to its mimicry of the brains own neurotransmitters). In fact, neuologists often advise the victims of certain types of stroke to keep smoking (against their family doctors advice) since it may be the only thing that is allowing them to remember their own name. The possibility of cancer is an acceptible risk in such circumstances and can be dealt with when it comes.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

For many years I longed for a game like SE IV and Stars without ever knowning what I wanted was already out. I was in the dark, clueless really about SE and Stars completely until someone turned me onto both games demos at about the same time. I instantly took a liking to both, but fell in love with SE IV. I have never really gotten into stars, but I think I haven't because I want to keep it in reserve.

I had hoped that Stars Supernova Genesis would be completed by now, but that game has langered in oblivion for over three years now.

I still have Stars and really want to play it, but after playing SEIV I find it hard to dedicate the time needed to learn Stars.

What is this Game ruining thing you spoke of?

Re: Stars! comparison
 

You could check out Stars SG at crisium.com. Sounds cool but there hasn't been any activity or news since the summer of 2002! And Flying Squirrel Sound (does the music for the game) hasn't reordered from my company (duplicates the CD's) since January 2002. Yeah it's dead!

I found there was a little too much micro management involved in Stars. Graphically it wasn't pleasing at all. I played it for a week and went back to MOO2.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Yup, Stars! Genesis is dead. Unfortunately, coz I wanted to play the game very much. I thought they implemented a lot of cool stuff to seriously give the Stars! game a huge boost in the right direction. Ah well, we'll just continue to wait for SE V.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Hmm, never play Stars. I don't even remember seeing it out on the shelves, but that may have been either before I had my PC, or my old PC didn't meet the minimum requirements, so I ignored it. I like the 4x type of games, and will buy most of them if I can. I missed out on Moo1, and didn't buy MOO2 until just before MOO3 came out. Good thing that I did that, from what I've been hearing about MOO3. Lately, I've been having a bLast playing Galactic Civilizations. I kind of alternate between playing GC and SEIVG, when I'm not playing Hearts of Iron. But my playing time will be further condensed once Railrood Tycoon 3 and Civ III: Conquests come out later this month.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Thanks to those who have played both games and can provide meaningful comparison.

I play Stars during my lunch hour. It is a strategy game so I do not care about the graphics and do not mind the micromanagement.

Stars has a whole list of bugs and features that are simply tolerated, but a couple can destroy a game if they come up. Battles are handled by the battleboard. It does not offer enough control and can occasionally do things that are REALLY stupid. The way it handled reorganizing fleets before the next move also allow a devious person to get away with what I would call cheating.

Does SE4 have these types of issues?

Re: Stars! comparison
 

If you have strategic combat only on or are playing a sim turn game then the AI can do some really stupid things with your fleets in battle. The difference here between Stars! and SE4 is that SE4 has a much better system for telling your ships and fleets what they should and shouldn't be doing.

What I remember of Stars! combat orders was quite simplistic a list of 4 or 5 things that you could change for targeting lists etc.

In SE4 you can tell it to target only specific things, or things based on what they have and give priorities. IE: Weapons first, then closest, then largest, then fastest and never fire at colony ships etc... You can tell it at what ranges to engage in combat from ramming to point blank to optimal to max range. Tell it to stop firing once the enemy has lost all weapons. What formation the fleet should enter battle in and whether once in battle it should break formation or not and which types of ships should and which shouldn't.

The AI can do stupid things in battle. But in SE4 there is a lot more that you can do about it to make sure it doesn't happen again.

There used to be a few issues with the order of movement when in combat (the person with the lower player number got to go first so the person who joined a game first always had an advantage) that was cleared up in one of the patches and now I would say there isn't anything in the combat that can be viewed as cheating or a bad game bug that can be abused.

I like Stars! a whole lot. On the whole I think if you merged Stars! race design with SE4 race design you would have the perfect race design for a 4x game.

But if I had to choose one to live with and one to not live with it would be SE4G for me and no more Stars!.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

I like the way fleets are created in stars.
Just give a ship or fleet the order to join another distant fleet or ship. When it catches up, it is added to the fleet.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

I like that as well. In fact I wish you could have orders to catch up and join a fleet in SE4. What I don't like is the simplicity of the battle orders that you give to those fleets.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

We brought this up on Chat today and well a search of their web site showed it was 404 down, and the only other info were a few screen shot and a statement that Empire Interactive was going to release the game in 2004. There was a shot of the box art but we all know that nothing has happned on this game since then. Too bad Shrapnel couldn't afford to help with the development costs. Might have been a great addition to their on line line up.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Stars is in some ways similar to SE but in other ways quite different. I really like the one space setup (no wormholes to connect it all) which makes it far more "realistic" imho (insofar you can use that term) and I really like a lot of the other features such as the ship movement and fuel system etc. but SEIV is very much alive and stars rather isnt.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Don't get me wrong I loved Stars!, but in a way I am kinda glad supernova went bust. After 9/11 they said the economic depression meant publishers weren't interested in new games. Since S:SNG wasn't coming out I looked around (by which I mean I read the 4X game description in a games catalogue) and ordered SE4. It was expensive but I have no regrets at getting it.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Neither have we http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

However, if nobody's working on Stars! anymore, wouldn't it be easy, or at least possible, for Shrapnel to acquire both the rights and everything already done, stick a new studio onto it and voila?

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Isn't that what happenned to MoO3? And that turned out well.....

Re: Stars! comparison
 

I think aquiring the rights and work already done would be prohibitively expensive for a company of Shrapnel's size to consider.

Re: Stars! comparison
 

I have played Stars! and Space Empires IV for what seems like since the dawn of time... to me Stars! is a game of logistics... making sure you have the right materials in the right place. Transportation of Minerals plays a much larger role as they have to be at the right planet at the right time. Combat... is much simpler to me in Stars! then Space Empires IV. There is less of a need for speciality ships and less variation in design and action.

Space Empires IV assumes that all planets will automatically have all the resources they need if the Empire has the quanity of resource available. It is much more sophisticated in combat. Even requiring in some situations specialty ships to make up for the lack of general ships in certain areas (point defense comes to mind - but there are others....).

Additionally as mentioned the orders are much more sophisticated and introduces diplomacy and Intel to control combat. (at least thats my use of it)

Rasorow

Re: Stars! comparison
 

Hmm, thats the biggest load of rubbish I've read in a long time, in so many, many ways.
I know several neurologists (am a doctor myself) and no-one would recommed anyone to smoke to enhance the memory!