Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!

[Ed Kolis]

Originally Posted by jars_u

I agree. RTS combat is not the way to go for a serious 4X game. I think the best although I would not call it a compromise is the "WEGO" system as found in the Combat Mission games. Orders/instructions are given in a turn and then executed for a certain time frame at which point they attempt to be carried out and you can't make adjustments unitl your next turn. The PBEM system of Combat Mission was also one of my favorite and could work I think for multi-player PBEM as in SE4.

The "WEGO" system can be emulated by the "autopause" system I've described; simply set autopause interval to, say, 10 seconds, and "auto-unpause" to an obscenely long or infinite delay

[Edi]

For reference, I was talking about the combat module here too, even though the AoW example was of the strategic map. There is nothing actually to prevent implementing something similar for a combat module.

Now, there are these things to consider:

While this is going to be a multislayer game, it will have a significant contingent of single player players.

There is nothing to stop there being both a traditional turn based system and a different version more suitable to multiplayer.

For a PBEM aspect, if it is included, there would have to be an automatic resolution option like the quick combat in Age of Wonders or the way things are done in Dominions 3, where units are given a limited script before being sent into combat. They act according to the script as best they can and depending on what they face, it can be anything from a crushing victory to total disaster.

There are multiple interests here that need to be balanced and it does not have to be just one or the other of two choices, since there are more. Being able to set combat module behavior from a dropdown menu or checkbox during game creation would answer these different needs and allow players to pick the best for any given game (e.g. fully turn based for SP, RTS with pauses or continuous turn based (ala HoMM5) or whatever else is decided on for MP).

This is a situation where you don't have a single silver bullet that is the Ultimate Truth for all situations.

[Gregstrom]

On the presumption that this is the thread where people say hello, "Hello!"

I loved MOO 1 and 2 back in the day, and would love to see an interesting space 4X game appear. I mostly play Dominions 3 at the moment, and I'm very interested in seeing more PBEM 4X games available.

[Xrati]

Firing arcs are not needed. This is a 4X game with combat being ¼ of the game. If you want to have complex combat systems just mod in a combat resolution generator from a stand alone combat simulator. Then enter the results into the game rather then over complicate a game system with resource heavy functions.

[dumbluck]

when it comes to reporting the money flow, be sure to include the ending balance for last month in addition to the usual projected balance for this month. The breakdowns from SE4 were thorough enough, but not having the end of month numbers makes it difficult to track trends accurately. For example, take a look at SE4. If half my queues finished this turn, then in the Empires tab my Construction costs at the start of the turn will reflect only what is CURRENTLY being worked on. It's much more accurate to look at what we DID, instead of what we think we MIGHT do...

[MarcoPolo]

I think the pitfalls to making such an overcomplicated system for the purposes of balancing turn based moves versus realtime ones are obvious. CPUs of today cant handle the type of ambitious gaming dynamics we cry out for. So to simplify things is the compromise.

I dont mind having a Sins of a Solar Empire type rendition to the overall look and feel of the game as long as the basic premise is still as far reaching as the solid efforts of past games, MOO2 and SE4. Its original concept design that makes and breaks a game, also implementation. But there are alot of has been 4X games that could of been amazing but fell short, some are Imperium Galactica II. It could of been incredible if done in a more expansive way. Although it did have some unique ideas that are appealing to me still.

Well I just hope Star Legacy can balance the expectations of many 4X fans. My requirement is simple, please make the star systems as realisitic as possible, like Haegemonia, with star types and planet types having at least some bearing to habitability and resources available. I really am yet to see a game that boasts being able to be scientifically accurate in the way planets are generated, and having spectrally precise stellar bodies ie stars. Wouldnt it be amazing to visit Sirius and see a blue giant that perhaps has quite a different array of planet types to choose from.

If one can exploit differing level of resources based on tech level and abundance of terrestrial planets, asteroids, versus gas giants and star type, then I am happy Im sure its quite clear by now from my previous posts that im abit of a logistical nut and immensely enjoy astronomical accuracy. Being abit of science buff too and how human development would carry on realistically beyond the stars.

[Skyburn]

Originally Posted by dumbluck

when it comes to reporting the money flow, be sure to include the ending balance for last month in addition to the usual projected balance for this month. The breakdowns from SE4 were thorough enough, but not having the end of month numbers makes it difficult to track trends accurately. For example, take a look at SE4. If half my queues finished this turn, then in the Empires tab my Construction costs at the start of the turn will reflect only what is CURRENTLY being worked on. It's much more accurate to look at what we DID, instead of what we think we MIGHT do...

I agree that last month's numbers should be kept. In fact I would like to see the game keep detailed records of your production history, broken down by each production center (planet, ship or whatever).

It would also be nice if the game's financial interface helped you to project what the most productive way of building up a planet would be. For example, would I get more resources by building the resource centers first and then a Space Yard? Or should I build the Space Yard first? What if I want to maximize SY time instead? How long will it take to pay off facility construction with new production revenue? Having to manually plug all the relevant numbers into a spreadsheet is a pain, and the alternative is to be outproduced by a more thorough enemy. Plus, if the game can calculate these numbers for you, it could calculate them for an AI.

I would also like to see some kind of trading interface. Being able to post offers and trade with other known civilizations would be fun. You could trade lots of stuff, not just resources. Maybe even hire some of your ships out as mercenaries or to transport cargo. It would give the whole political system more depth, too.

[jars_u]

Originally Posted by Skyburn

Maybe even hire some of your ships out as mercenaries or to transport cargo. It would give the whole political system more depth, too.

I think this is an especially good idea that would add some good depth both in being able to hire or sell mercenary services. Players that focus all on butter could use that cash to hire the guns. In another aspect you could also sell mercenary services (I'd buy that for a $1) to an ally involved in a conflict without actually becoming directly involved in the conflict yourself.

[Q]

This is of course just my personal opinion, but I don't care at all if the game is realistic or not. It must be fun to play it!
Chess is definitely not a realistic war game and yet people play it for centuries.

[Xrati]

"Q" you've done it again!!!
What a concept! "Make It Fun" who'd of thunk it!!!