Welcome Star Legacy Development Group!

[Xrati]

A) Scout x3 Frigate x3 Destroyer x3 Cruiser x3 Battleship x1
BB's don't need expanded versions

(Carriers) Escort Carrier x5 Fleet Carrier x 5
Escort Carriers x3, Carriers x3, Assult Carriers x1(maybe 2)

(Bases) Space Station x5 Starbase x5
Could be expanded through the use of module attachments.

(Transports) Courier x5 Transport x4 Freighter x3
OK, but larger versions will always be the default build.

I like A
B) Explorer, Frigate, First Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer, First Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser,
Battlecruiser, Battleship, Heavy Battleship, Juggernaut.
(Carriers) Escort Carrier, Light Carrier, Carrier
(Bases) Defense Base, Base, Starbase
(Transports) Small Transport, Transport, Heavy Transport
Rescue/Tow ship

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo

@Baron... A lot of science fiction series come up with fantastic technologies and plotlines on how it would impact a society and what the implications of it would be as a whole. One of my favourites being the Xindi species in Star Trek Enterprise. The Xindi consisted of 6 sentient species all evolving on one planet hellbent on destroying earth. They spanned from Reptile, Insectoid, Aquatic/whale, Mammalian/yeti type, a 2nd reptilian race and an extinct avian race that was always referred to as the tragedy to the terrible legacy to the infighting many centuries ago. I to this day dont know why it was taken off the air, since every Star Trek series was flawless in their appeal. And STE was no exception, it was fresh, about the pioneering days of Starfleet and was still done with much creativity and imagination. I only regret it wasnt allowed to run its full course of 7 seasons and was ended abruptly at season 4. I have since not seen any series compare in its attention to detail and story execution. Not Stargate, Battlestar or the new V series, although they have their own styles and narratives. Its nothing compared to ST. Im hoping Star Legacy will be the flagship and example of games to come of this genre.

Star Trek is a very bad example to use for "science and technology" in fiction. Trek is very arbitrary and inconsistent. They alter the science any time they want to make a story work. I would say Trek is actually not science fiction most of the time. It's more like soap opera with some techo-trappings. That's probably the major reason it has lost its lock on the market and now has so many competitors.

[MarcoPolo]

@Alikiwi> I like A as its well rounded and kept simple. But if the battles are to be waged in a (Gratuitous Space Battles format) then B is my winner. As it would allow for more weapon/sheilds/crew configurations as better ship hulls were researched by the player. Alot of custom ship fans would welcome this too who are into GSB and its modding ships for battle playability. And you could allow for disfavourable ship conditions according to the battle locations ie nebulas, meteor storms, gravity anomalies to handicap certain ship types so as not to create a race for biggest ship takes all kind of scenario. This would keep things from becoming repititious. Therefore maintaining a sizzors paper rock style battle strategy.

I also welcome the 2 species possibility on a single planet. Its makes for interesting diplomacy options. But can i suggest there being resource ratio information of how much each player is using of SAID planets resources? This could change as one population grew at the expense of another, or if one population was more politically stable (ie better entertainment facilities, less revolt)

Also would populating the moons of nearby planets coinhabited by 2 species be an option? Im wondering how cohabitation on a world with 2 different races with radically different requirements would happen? Say a methane breather vs an oxygen breather. Perhaps one a methane world the oxygen breather would be at a disadvantage since they would have to build domes but also the same would be if the situations were reversed and a methane breather wished to colonise a oxygen/nitrogen dominant planet.

Im putting up all sorts of scenarios in my mind, but the motivation for either race to colonise a planet not natively favourable to them would only happen for resources. My mind boggles on ways to acheive 2 races on a planet sharing resources. Perhaps there could be a population cap or population slots that gradually fill up as each race reaches their next population level. Ulimately creating a race to fill up the planets capacity before the other. However you could introduce strong ecological penalties if its done too carelessly and not sustainably or with little thought to energy and agriculture as a disincentive to just go out and horde worlds willy nilly.

Also non natives to that planet type and hence dome builders would grow at a handicapped rate since their colonising a world that neither favors them or directly promotes their race type. These handicaps would be less according to how close they are in similarity to the native race.

Just a thought...but will there be planet disasters? like comets or meteors, or radiation solar flares, that could throw a planet into a wasteland for a few decades? or cap its agricultural and population capacities? Just wondering, also an incentive could be to allow technologies that lessen this like biospheres and planetary sheilding techs or options to build underground or underwater as well. Providing this...or perhaps a slot system of colonisation would allow a typical terrestrial planet to have 5 default slots (representative of 5 regions or continents) later each slot would be able to open an underground or subterranean expandable slot for urban centres immune to solar or planetwide catastrophes. Or in the same vein after researching aquatic colonisation perhaps an ocean slot that would provide more agriculture and population options (of course on worlds with more than 50% water... less water may mean only 1 or 2 of the 5 slots would allow for such an option at all). In essence having 5 slots may allow for 5 races to contest a planet or cohabit one too, and peacefully if diplomatic and commercial perks are offered in the game as incentives. Of course early in the game uncontested planets would gradually fill up their respective slots with the natural progression and development of the native population. Slots could be unique in science/population/agriculture/commercial output depending on the race and planet type it is inhabiting... small barren planets would have less slots perhaps 2 or 3 while gas giants would have many more than terrestrial worlds but all geared towards mining/science with very little population perks. Even Stars could have slots dedicated to science/strategic defense or mining depending on the star type.

Science could be perked at 2 different rates, one being for military science and the other domestic. What I mean is that military scientific discoveries and their rates of growth would be proportional to the military resources gained and developed via slots in say nearby gas giants or debris fields (asteriod belts) that offer slots favourable with military perks. This would provide an incentive to grab and develop military science posts or military installations around gas giants, asteroid belts or stars as well, and not just make the game winnable by conquering planets. Domestic science would have more perks around terrestrial planets, with perhaps a space slot opening up for each terrestrial slot that is upgraded by a space elevator of sorts. Providing more space commercial options and improving the population standards of living (ie improving mortality and food output).(It would be possible to see entire star sytems being exploited for military purposes only if say a certain race cannot successfully utilise the terrestrial planets for population bonuses or is not worth the effort. Eg a rock/silicon based life form that gains huge population perks from volcanic planets, hence it will gain next to nothing on a serene waterworld with no volcanoes present. However an aquatic species might move in and not feel threatened to develop that systems population capacities, given it is not at war with the silicates and may even gain commercial perks if trading with the silicates in its vicinity.

Worlds that are already inhabited by primitive races or non space faring could offer domestic research bonuses for observing a prewarp species, by setting up a space outpost there. Or covertly inhabiting that world by means of its underground population slots, or a space slot that would be available initially. Perhaps setting up a nearby lunar science colony could also benefit with domestic science bonuses. However an agressive race could gain more military bonuses if enslaving that world and exploiting the inhabitants. Another bonus to taking the evil route would be as a food source if you are a reptilian or insectoid race bent on destruction that gains these perks from most forms of life that are not yet developed.

Well just some ideas, feel free to muse some more about them.

[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?