Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!

[MarcoPolo]

@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.

[Alikiwi]

"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.

[MarcoPolo]

@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.

[Alikiwi]

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?

[MarcoPolo]

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/

[Puke]

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.

[Xrati]

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!

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

[MarcoPolo]

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.

[klausD]

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

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.

[Ed Kolis]

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