Played SE IV long ago, and considering SE V.

[Dogboy]

I am an old VGA Planets/Stars!/Space Empires IV player. I enjoyed them all, though I haven't played for a couple of years.

I'm considering setting up an SE V game for a group of friends who played the earlier games with me. The reviews say it is very buggy, and I recall SE IV having a good deal of micromanagement. On the other hand, those probably all were written with ver 1.0, and I see we're up to 1.71. And, the popular gaming press tends to favor fancy graphics over deep strategy. They don't understand our "culture" -- people who relish all the flexibility that games like SE have.

One issue is that some players have busy schedules and are worried that what starts out as a manageable 20 minute a day game could turn into a 2 hour daily marathon in order to micromanage their empires.

I'd also appreciate perspectives on game balance. I remember with some of the earlier games, where you started had a heck of a lot to do with your success in the game.

Also, does the game give significant rewards to taking a "munchkin" approach (e.g. if you spend hours reading the forums can you find quirky approaches that are pretty much undefeatable?

Finally, what are best parts of the game? Is it an improvement or a step backward from SE IV? I see that diplomacy is really more sophisticated. Also, you can control ground combat. Is that a really cool part of the game, or just a distraction?

I'd really appreciate any perspective those of you who play SE V might be willing to share. Thanks!

[Ironmanbc]

I'm a fan of Stars and SE4 and I still play them today I have also bought SE5 and yes it had a lot of bugs at first, but with the help of players the bugs have been almost stamped out

I would say get SE5 and play it and judge for yourself, it will be fun learning a new way of the 4X game that we all know and love.

[Dogboy]

Ironmanbc,

Thanks for your reply. I'm really hoping to get replies that will help my players judge whether or not they want to join the game. I want to encourage them to play, but don't above all want to be 50 turns in and have someone bail because the game is not what they expected. We're all familiar with 4X games, and love them, but if, e.g., the game winds up taking hours per turn of micromanagement, some players will bail.

Thanks!

[Fyron]

Even the biggest SEIV PBW games I played never took hours per turn to play..

I'd also appreciate perspectives on game balance. I remember with some of the earlier games, where you started had a heck of a lot to do with your success in the game.

This is the same for every single strategy game ever made, unless you use custom maps that are explicitly set up to be as even (and bland) as possible.

In terms of general game balance (techs, components, etc.), I would highly recommend getting the Balance Mod right off the bat, and not bothering with the stock game.

Additionally, BM includes an earlier version of FQM, which has several benefits for map-related balance. If you play with the "Paradise" quadrant type, you can eliminate all of the uninhabitable and dangerous system types, thus ensuring that no player can have a Tesco Start.

In SE5, the planet types and atmospheres are kept rather balanced on the map overall, but there will still be instances of clustering of certain types in certain areas due to the random generation. In FQM, individual solar systems have more uniform distributions of planet types. The planet types are based on the orbitals, with rocks in the inside, gas in the middle, and ice on the outside. This doesn't change the overall balance of planet types on the quadrant level that is in the stock game, but it does insure that individual systems are a little more balanced.

Finally, what are best parts of the game? Is it an improvement or a step backward from SE IV?

It's mostly an improvement. The UI is more clicky than SE4, but you do get used to it. The orders button panel is a mess, but you should be using hotkeys anyways in strategy games. Construction point spillover in queues is a great addition. No more need for hte obsessive-compulsive types to build Mineral Miner IIs, then upgrade them all to Mineral Miner IIIs once the planet is full. Customizable layouts in nearly every report screen are quite handy. Sadly, the construction queues window no longer lists the next 2 items in build queues. Component slot layouts are a rather dubious feature, especially since damage is only directional on a "sectional" basis (and outer hull slots are a magic wall protecting inner hull slots). The lack of percentage/slider based racial characteristics makes race design far more boring; the best solution would have been to simply balance the costs rather than nuking the setup altogether. Alas... Bases no longer have magic quantum reactors built-in, units and facilites now require maintenance, etc.

Really, the best bet is to just download the demo and see the differences for yourself. It is many versions out of date and will have some bugs that are fixed in the latest version, but its a risk-free way to see the game for yourself.

Also, you can control ground combat. Is that a really cool part of the game, or just a distraction?

It's no more or less a distraction than tactical space combat is. Since both are in pauseable real time instead of turn-based, it takes a lot less time to go through them in tactical mode.

[Raapys]

I don't know, I think there are few direct improvements over SEIV, and none of them major. And there are many dubious changes, and some that are simply bad( like the UI ). Stuff like the new "3D" combat system wont even be noticed much if you play simultaneous mode or multiplayer. The turn processing times are much longer than SEIV's, making single-player a chore. Some of the new game features cripples the AI so that it becomes even worse than in SEIV.

On the bright side, the modding capabilities of the game have been improved greatly.

To sum it up for my own part, had SEIV had the same modding capabilities and the continued patch support from the developer then I'd see no reason at all to go for SEV; SEIV is simply a better game in most areas. As it is though, SEV has both these things and is thus slowly improving.

[Fyron]

No game features cripple the AI; what you are seeing is that SE5's stock AI is even more poorly developed than SE4's. Its theoretically capable of handling everything in the game, but the code isn't there yet. Kwok has made a lot of progress in BM's AI, for example. He even has it doing remote mining now, something impossible in SE4.

The new combat system is definitely noticeable in multiplayer games, as it is far more than just a "3D" change. The real time execution is the important bit, as it eliminates all of the idiosyncrasies of SE4's ultra-primitive phase-less combat. Combat resolution is certainly slower in strategic mode though, as Aaron has not yet figured out how to compute it at the speed of math (as opposed to a sped-up real time clock).

[capnq]

Dogboy said: One issue is that some players have busy schedules and are worried that what starts out as a manageable 20 minute a day game could turn into a 2 hour daily marathon in order to micromanage their empires.

Unlike Fyron's experience, I've routinely seen two-hour turns late in my SEIV PBW games; my personal record is about 2:45. For me, a one hour turn is about average for midgame.

The way to avoid daily grinds is to not use 24-hour turns. I prefer 72-hour turns in my games. If that's too slow for your players' tastes, the host can always start the game with a shorter interval and then increase the turn limits later as the empires grow larger.

Also, does the game give significant rewards to taking a "munchkin" approach (e.g. if you spend hours reading the forums can you find quirky approaches that are pretty much undefeatable?

You can find threads where people claim that a particular strategy is unbeatable, but those threads usually also produce suggestions of ways to defeat that "perfect" strategy.

Finally, what are best parts of the game? Is it an improvement or a step backward from SE IV?

The changes are a decidedly mixed bag. I still play both games, and overall spend more time playing SEV, but I can play more solo turns in a single sitting in SEIV, because my lack of familiarity with the (IMO) more awkward UI makes SEV more mentally fatiguing.

Improvements in SEV include:

1) the ability to customize the layouts of the information screens. Once you've figured out what data you most often need to access, you can set things up to get at that data easily.

2) managing your research is a lot more flexible. Instead of SEIV's limit of dividing evenly between a maximum of 12 techs, SEV lets you allocate 1% increments of your research to as many techs in whatever proportions you want to work on them, and you can gain multiple levels in a single turn if you've allocated enough points to do so.

3) the intelligence system has been completely overhauled in SEV, making it actually playable. (SEIV PBW games routinely ban intel because of its "all-or-nothing" nature.)

4) you have a lot more diplomatic options, at least when dealing with non-AI players.

5) the graphics are generally flashier, if you care about that sort of thing. I was impressed when I discovered my first black hole system.

Some of the negatives in SEV are tied to the improvements:

1) the UI is generally more "fiddly" in SEV. Actions that could be done in SEIV in one or two clicks often require 3-5 clicks in SEV, and using the hotkeys only helps with some of these. There are also some odd inconsistencies in the UI's behavior, like some columns being sortable, but others on the same display screen not sortable.

2) The flexible research can be a trap if you're an obsessive micromanager. There's a constant temptation to tweak the allocations to "optimize" your results.

Some people also dislike the switch to "infinite" tech levels. Every stock technology goes to level 100; some techs end up needing multiple levels researched before you actually get any benefits. Other people dislike the changes that Kwok's Balance Mod makes to the tech tree to deal with this problem.

3) Intelligence can only be targeted in wide categories now; there's no way to focus your efforts on a specific ship, planet, or system. (This is probably more realistic, but it can be frustrating at times.)

4) The AI generally doesn't know what to do with all the additions to diplomacy, and will make and accept all kinds of absurd proposals. (I get particularly annoyed at the AI when it repeatedly asks to renegotiate the title of your current treaty, with no other changes to the terms.)

5) The new diplomatic alliances still have enough unfixed bugs that many players don't bother to try to use them.

Overall, I'd be hard pressed to say that SEV is better or worse than SEIV; each has different strengths and weaknesses.

[Fyron]

capnq said:
4) The AI generally doesn't know what to do with all the additions to diplomacy, and will make and accept all kinds of absurd proposals.

This goes back to the under-developed stock AI scripts; the AI in Balance Mod is much better at handling diplomacy and treaties (though is still being improved). It even has some fear factors where larger empires can cow smaller empires into accepting less desirable terms (or override their never-ending love of war when they are nearly dead ).

[Raapys]

Well, however one puts it the net result is the same; the AI is ill-equipped to handle the game.

Indeed though, Kwok has made some serious progress with the AI. However, I still have yet to lose a single game, and it's not because I play well, which I don't, it's because the AI isn't really capable of coordinating attacks well enough to actually kill someone off. This, along with the long turn processing times and the rather tedious UI, sort of ruins single-player in SEV for me.

Agreed though, the combat part is definitely something that needed a change from SEIV. However, I'm not really happy with the current system either.

Then again, there are not so many 4x games where I'm pleased with the combat system. I had the most fun with Master of Orion 2's combat, but that one was horribly unbalanced even fully patched.

[Fyron]

Raapys said:
...the AI isn't really capable of coordinating attacks well enough to actually kill someone off.

Isn't SE4 the same way? All the AI does is amass ships and pseudo-randomly throws them around the map at all of its enemies. It doesn't really have any long term planning, and frequently redirects fleets sent against an enemy in the west to an enemy in the east, before they reach the destination.