Planets and Resources

[Xrati]

In a game aspect, there are probably millions of asteroid fields, small planets and other entities. Strategically, they are unimportant and only important planets and places are brought into the game.

For every space station built, there is a great increase in trading and economic activity that occurs in the area of the station. Same with planets and some larger operations. It is not the case of some far off mining outpost! Positions of interest are brought into play for game mechanics.

[Urendi Maleldil]

We're going to be abstracting a lot of the smaller unimportant objects into zones of space. For example, we won't be modeling every single asteroid in an asteroid field, but there might be an area of the map that is considered to be the asteroid field, and only model special bodies in that area, such as colonizable asteroids, or asteroids with special resources .

[MarcoPolo]

There seems to be several ways to approach planets and resources. As some have suggested it can be planet focused or star system focused where the solar system itself is your playground; budding with exploitable asteroids, moons and gas giants.

I agree with having planets with character. We need resource building options that unlock the potential of a terrestrial world, moon, asteroid or even mining facilities that exploit gas planets or even the star itself.

The importance to each resources must be weighed up on the overall focus of the players objectives, whether it be to become an economic giant, to a warmongering empire. Its really dependant on the goals of the individual, and so he must pursue whatever avenues available to acheive this. But whatever he chooses there must be a resiliant, vibrant and flexible game dynamics to support such lofty pursuits.

I am excited about bubbled colonies, scientific research outpost orbiting some far flung gas planet. Or a military installation testing some potent new superweapon around an asteroid belt. I would like to see water worlds and volcanic worlds to acidic/barren planetoids to exploit for minerals or have bubbled domed habitats to expand ones empires reach and claim. All of these things seemingly make for a rich gaming environment, at least in my eyes.

I wish to know however how the Shrapnel guys will tackle allowing several species partake in the colonisation of one planet as I believe I heard mentioned before. This would be a wonderful idea, as I think it would add another level of diversity and realism not seen before. This would certainly lessen the repitituous nature of seeing dozens of colonised worlds looking identical to one another. But I believe if not using a slot based allocation system (each with an allocated amount of resources based on population size) of what I would call planet squatting then I really am interested in Shrapnels solution to many species on one world.

[pydna]

Stellar Legacy looks like it has tremendous promise.

These are just my musings so feel free to ignore them. Or if you want me to elaborate on anything just ask.

One thing I've been thinking about is each solar system is divided into zones. By that I mean each planet and it's moons asteroids etc are considered one zone.

For example in the Sol system is divided into 9 planetary zones (or is that 8.....)

Zone 3 consists of the Earth and the moon.

When the solar system is attacked players attack/defend these planetary zones. This reduces the micro management somewhat for both the attacker and the defender.

I do like the idea of players customising their races. I also would love to see a pbem function that would be fantastic.

Cheers

[jars_u]

Originally Posted by pydna

When the solar system is attacked players attack/defend these planetary zones. This reduces the micro management somewhat for both the attacker and the defender.
... I also would love to see a pbem function that would be fantastic.
Cheers

I not sold good or bad but I would think having specific defined zones would increase not decrease the level of micromanagement as you have defined it.

Having zones that correlate for the tactical/combat map depending on how scales are implemented could add variety (debris, gravity wells etc.) but not entirely certain I understand what you are suggesting. Are there any games that have an analogous implementation that you can cite that might help us with a point of reference?

PBEM is a requirement - I think that is a feature pretty much everyone at this point has agreed they would like to see.

[Xrati]

SE4's system isn't broke. It wasn't all that bad and in some cases was pretty open for anything players wanted to do. Not all planetary systems are going to be uniform in design or layout. Keeping the sysytem 'open' as SE4 did was good.

[jars_u]

Originally Posted by Xrati

SE4's system isn't broke.

I agree I think systems and the ability to customize for games in SE4 was something that wasn't broke - just trying to fully grasp what was inferred or what might be possible with "zones". But as I picture it I think it leads to more micro-management possibilities which in this case for me I don't think would be a desirable game feature.

[MarcoPolo]

I dont know about how complex or how simplified you guys want this game to look like. But if what one Shrapnel programmer said here is true about multiple races being able to colonise single planets... then how do you figure this will be done without too much elborate MM (Micromanagement).

I think that each planet should be zoned (for the purpose of sharing a world with several players), of course this addition in detail will undoubtly increase the level of MM, but I propose that it be handled in a multi-tier approach. Whereby the player has the choice to indulge in "said" MM planet functions (or tier 1), and also have a choice to retreat to another tier (tier 2)... ie interplanetary view where immediate moons, asteroids basic planetary region information is tweaked to the players preferences. Tier 3 could be the entire solar system view which enables a player to directly manipulate complete production for his entire solar systems output. It would be a summarised stats screen that allows for direct manipulation of science/commerce/production etc etc for every asset owned by the civilization in that star system. Tier 4 would be a galaxy view of all the stars within that persons acquisition. And each of these levels could be automated at the users behest.

I think the crux of this working or not lies with the focus of how resources will be exploited and in which way to have a significant bearing on gameplay. There is no point to having so many celestial bodies on offer if the game does not intend on having a resource based system of economics or advancements. If there will be no planet mining or finite resources then there will be little incentive to take over anothers territory (other than conquest alone which quickly becomes an empty exercise stilted in the tedious and repititous).

I would make certain resources more abundant on terrestrial planets than gas giants or asteroid belts but balanced enough to make it compelling to need to acquire control of a gas giant or asteroid belts too (by the same token some resources will be more abundant on gas giants and asteroid belts than terrestrial worlds). Otherwise it becomes a self defeating undertaking that offers no strategic benefits to moving an empire from rock to rock. Even stars should have research or defensive bonuses when exploited. Of course there can be star systems that maybe a barren choice for colonisation, ie a small red dwarf with maybe 2 or 3 barren worlds. But this should not detract from it having a strategic importance if its near the border of a significant civilization as it could be used to install listening posts or something that would gain the player a tactical advantage.

In the immortal words of another military tactician...

We can ill afford another Klendathu :P

[pydna]

It really depends on how you would like to design your overall planet/colonisation rules.

How many star systems would the biggest game have?

How many objects were you planning to include in each system?

Is there a limit on the number of player manufactured objects in a system? (e.g. minefields, space stations etc).

Xrati I never considered two or more players colonising the same planet. It could be interesting, perhaps some rule that only allies could do this? Ofcourse this could lead to conflict down the track if one player wanted to terraform the world and the other didn't, or they stopped being allies :-)

[MarcoPolo]

I was also intruiged by multiple races colonising one world. It is an intersting concept. I would do with allies only, but also having the option of underground colonies if the civilization in question has the technology to do so. Basically allowing a free for all, enemy, ally or neutral to grab territory in a big way and perhaps causing disputes and minor planetside skirmishes that could be resolved peacefully too if more diplomatic avenues are available.

I also hope pre space faring worlds and civilisations are an option, they could offer valuable commodities, like slaves if one is a very draconian society hellbent on conquest. I would also ask that pre space faring plants be allowed the option of joining an advanced civilisations empire, as a means of guaranteeing it survival and for rich commercial opportunities too. Or one could even colonise the planets rock strata, ie underground levels if possible, or perhaps even some underwater sea colonisation that is rich in resources and will not alert the younger civilisation to it.

All in all this game should allow for some very enticing gameplay options.