How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Teleros
Ideas & Texts Creator
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:18 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby Teleros » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:36 pm

knightdt wrote:Man Teleros, the more posts of yours I read the more I realize we have very little in common... except a love of the 4x space strategy genre.

:D

I think a lot depends on our assumptions of the scale. When I think of MOO2 I go instinctively towards giant empires, and that means I want to minimise my micro per star system. I've got nothing against placing buildings etc or specialising colonies... I just feel that kind of thing works better on smaller scales.

knightdt wrote:Placing structures on planets may not be realistic, but I don't think it would break my immersion level. It opens possibilities for strategy (and being a strategy game, this is good). There is zero chance of this happening until expansion content with the advanced ground combat but the fun factor of turn based strategy ground combat in a customizable citi-scape is at the very least thought provoking.

SimCity 5: Modern Warfare Edition perhaps :lol: ? I say that only half-jokingly, mind you :) .

knightdt wrote:"Space = unlimited resources, for all intents and purposes, unless you venture into the realm of magic and technobabble. Need XYZ for your anti-matter reactors? Space is full of it, whatever XYZ is."

Ummm... No. This is the equivalent of saying that there will never be a water shortage on planet Earth because there are oceans.

No, there won't be a water shortage on Earth (as a whole I mean). As potable water becomes scarcer, its price rises. As its price rises, so it becomes more economical to find alternative sources of potable water. Nuclear-powered (or even solar-powered) desalination plants in 3... 2... 1... hey presto, more water to drink!

knightdt wrote:There are a lot of factors involved in tapping resources, no matter their location and apparent availability.

Such as?

knightdt wrote:Management of limited resources will ALWAYS be an issue for our species

Not in terms of material resources it won't be. Every single time someone's raised the alarm about "Peak ____", they've been wrong.

Now factor in the fact that games like MOO2 involve FTL & interstellar resources, and... yeah. We won't be running out of anything any time soon.


knightdt wrote:As a matter of fact, the main reason for expansion into space is the requirement for more than our planet can provide and I would find it extremely difficult to believe that a species would decided to inhabit space if they did not share the need for MORE (in which case the argument for 'but what about a different species?' is not valid).

Yes, but once you DO get out there, suddenly you've got a ludicrous amount of... well whatever you need, quite frankly. An old NASA study (back when there were just 6bn humans) reckoned the entire asteroid belt's mineral wealth would be equal to something like $100bn... per person.

Now also try and imagine what would happen, say, if there were no environmental regulations for mining Mars - just maximum efficiency. Assuming you can't simply carve the entire planet up (or for that matter point a Stellar Converter at it), that could result in a truly colossal amount of minerals being dug up. Just wait until real deep-core mining arrives on Mars and people start sucking up as much iron as they need from the core...

knightdt wrote:Lastly, I believe race specific technologies should be directly tied to something that race can do that others quite simply are incapable of. That would be a pretty easy explanation for why it is exclusive.

AIs + multi-species nations will be capable of it though, surely?

knightdt wrote:But I don't want to end there - I want to point out that despite the fact that you (Teleros) and I disagree on so much, I do rather enjoy reading your opinion on these matters in order to be exposed to a very different viewpoint, and one that doubtless many others share.

Likewise :) .

knightdt wrote:The developers are most likely looking very closely over such conversations in order to figure out how they might simultaneous satisfy both your preferences and my own; and I'm confident that they will make a better game for it. So by all means, please keep disagreeing. :D

:D

I suppose what I'd do as a dev in this case is (assuming MORE does great etc etc etc) offer a DLC pack or two. First to allow for "Advanced Colony Specialisation" or something on the game setup screen, so that you can build, say, multiple auto-factories on a colony, and second to allow for "Advanced Ground Combat" or whatever - for when you want to fight more interesting ground battles. Another alternative would be a launcher for MORE, with the available DLC & mods you have installed listed. Tick the ones you want to turn them on & then play. Either way, it would keep such mechanics optional, but also keep the basic game costs down & reasonable (esp as it's an indie game).
Clear ether!

knightdt
Ideas & Texts Creator
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:11 am

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby knightdt » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:20 am

Teleros wrote:
knightdt wrote:"Space = unlimited resources, for all intents and purposes, unless you venture into the realm of magic and technobabble. Need XYZ for your anti-matter reactors? Space is full of it, whatever XYZ is."

Ummm... No. This is the equivalent of saying that there will never be a water shortage on planet Earth because there are oceans.

No, there won't be a water shortage on Earth (as a whole I mean). As potable water becomes scarcer, its price rises. As its price rises, so it becomes more economical to find alternative sources of potable water. Nuclear-powered (or even solar-powered) desalination plants in 3... 2... 1... hey presto, more water to drink!

knightdt wrote:There are a lot of factors involved in tapping resources, no matter their location and apparent availability.

Such as?

knightdt wrote:Management of limited resources will ALWAYS be an issue for our species

Not in terms of material resources it won't be. Every single time someone's raised the alarm about "Peak ____", they've been wrong.

Now factor in the fact that games like MOO2 involve FTL & interstellar resources, and... yeah. We won't be running out of anything any time soon.


I see that I wasn't clear. When I meant limited resources, I was not referring to the potential to actually run out of something. When I say that I have a limited amount of money, I'm actually referring to income - which is a rate and not a quantity.

The limited resources of Earth are limited by rate (and possibly quantity) but you are absolutely right when it comes to the fact that we have never run out of anything yet (nor even peaked the rate we can exploit it. Except for whales... where we almost forced them to extinction because the rate of oil we wanted was a bit too aggressive. And trees. It turns out the number of trees in the world is decreasing pretty rapidly --- but much like with whale oil, our economy is far more adaptive and will find alternative building materials (like plastics and steel). Or open up new areas of resources through reserves additions by way of exploration - like into space). And I'm sure there are other things we almost ran out of, and more things that we will almost run out of later. Maybe some day there will actually be something we can say we ran out of (although technically there was probably more there to get, we just decided it was too hard).

Either way, we won't run out of these things but we will be rate limited. Managing resources in most 4x games is about rate and not quantity (but there is a setting in Space Empires V where you can actually run out --- never played it before because I hear the computer can't handle it. Don't particularly feel like trying it anyway). My original post on limited resources was in defense of AstralWanderer referring to the space empires series having multiple resources. It didn't occur to me that you were perhaps thinking of the 'finite resources' option rather than referring to the management of multiple resources that are limited in your ability to exploit them. I think AstralWanderer was referring only to the multiple resources and managing the limited potential rates you could achieve for each resource. I would much rather see MORE have multiple resources than just a single generic pool. Having more than three is arguably unnecessarily complex; but I do like Sid Meier's Civilization series take on luxury resources being highly regional (and thus requiring a larger number of total resources).

Interesting read on limited resources: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... urces.html

I should disclose the fact that I work for an Oil & Gas company. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that we have not seen 'peak oil' and we are not likely to see it during my lifetime (and I'm in my twenties). As oil becomes scarce the price goes up, as the price goes up reserves increase as oil that was not economic before is now, as the new reserves are discovered the scarcity decreases and the price balances out. As oil becomes more expensive than alternatives, the alternatives will become more popular and oil use will decrease. All of this has a few decades (if not centuries) to settle, which is more than enough time. As a matter of fact, when we go into a reservoir and pull out all of the oil that we bother to do before abandoning it, we are actually usually leaving behind somewhere around HALF of all the oil that was actually down there --- if the price goes up enough, then it could be quite economic to come back and get a bit more out of the very same holes that were drilled in the twenties. Is it possible we will come close to using it all up? No, by then a new technology for oil will replace it in much the same way that a new technology for light replaced using whale oil.

As for the factors in exploiting resources that are apparently readily available --- "Such as?" you ask; I will point again to the Oceans. Go forth and drink. No? Too salty? Silty? Not sanitary? (another word starting with 's'?). Infrastructure is required in order to get this water. With that infrastructure comes decisions and costs - including opportunity costs. If you build a water plant and don't have funds or workers or whatever left to simultaneously build a missile defense platform --- that decision is the very essence of a 4x strategy game.

If you need XYZ for your anti-matter space reactors, but you need food for your people, and you need raw metals for ships, and luxury goods to keep your people happy... You are managing limited resources. This is actually the basis for trade as well. My excess for yours; you are better at farming and I produce more luxuries? Let's make a deal... Generically say that 'trade' is going on in the background and increase both empire's supply of 'raw materials' resource (which is the Space Empires method of handling trade). Not very satisfying.

Teleros wrote:Now also try and imagine what would happen, say, if there were no environmental regulations for mining Mars...


I'd just like to comment on this one --- if we released excessive greenhouse gases on Mars then we would actually be doing the first stage of terraforming. The sooner we start, the sooner we can get the human race on Planet number Two. Let's do it. Now. :D

AstralWanderer
Hearty Supporter
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:06 pm

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby AstralWanderer » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:11 am

Teleros wrote:I'd find that breaking my immersion more than the MOO2 system TBH. The MOO2 model is just a graphical representation of "very non-specific infrastructure on the planet" (ie, you don't build 1 Stellar Converter you build 6+ to allow 360 degree firing arcs, just all tied to a central reactor). Playing a SimCity mini-game when my colonial population is in the billions is... well it seems daft.
It doesn't have to involve SimCity-level detail, but conversely *not* being able to specify facility placement could be considered daft too. Location allows differentiation between large, environmentally-benign planets with lots of building space and small, barely habitable worlds with next to none (Imperium Galactica being a good example here). Location placement could allow a colony to be optimised for defence (with tight clusters of buildings giving each other supporting fire) or production (with sprawling metropoli and transport links aplenty).
Teleros wrote:MOO2's far better in that regard IMHO. If I have the power to build artificial worlds, dyson mega-structures and the like... well then I'm damn well gonna build my factory wherever the hell I want it :D .
But you won't (and shouldn't!) be able to build Dyson spheres at game start - you should be limited by the space and the technology available to exploit it. And MOO2 allows you just one factory (or Automated Factory) per colony...

GalCiv 2's system (which is pretty good in this area) allows you to build in some areas on-planet, with others being opened up once appropriate technologies are developed. Ascendancy requires all buildings to be linked to a starting point, either by other buildings or tunnels (if you want to exploit a specific resource square you have to decide whether to build tunnels to get there quickly, or buildings which increase production). Space Empires has a more abstract facility limit per planet which can be increased only under specific circumstances (successfully converting a planet's atmosphere).

In contrast, MOO2 allows maximum population to be increased but imposes no restriction on facilities built, so planet size has no effect and a fully outfitted planet with every enhancement can be run with just one meeple on board - you still want to say that's better?
Teleros wrote:In other words, the economics of a 4X game more or less must be dumbed down to something involving population, if only to ensure that those population figures are useful for something.
Population should be the underpinning of an economy but that doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down to a single figure. Resources (minerals, energy) are critical as is technology and sociology.
Teleros wrote:Space = unlimited resources, for all intents and purposes, unless you venture into the realm of magic and technobabble. Need XYZ for your anti-matter reactors? Space is full of it, whatever XYZ is.
I'm in agreement with Knightdt's response on this.
Teleros wrote:You sure you played MOO2? Command Points paid for maintenance unless you exceeded them (then it was money), and upgrades were fairly simple to do in MOO2 as well.
CP's weren't related to economic output or mineral production, just the number of bases you had (with tech modifiers). So I don't consider them as "proper" maintenance. As for upgrades, I recall each ship requiring upgrading individually - no ability to order an empire-wide "change class X to Y" which the Space Empires series offers.
Teleros wrote:No dedicated supply ships though (then again, who'd want that? Just make that a role of freighters if you really really want it in).
The advantage of a supply system is that it opens up new design options. You could have scout vessels able to travel further than other ships but with the downside of less weapons/armour/shields. Combat design options would be expanded since you could build a heavily-weaponed hard-hitter with only enough ammunition to last a couple of rounds (powerful but reliant on supply vessels) or a "turtle" design with enough supply storage to outlast other vessels able to carry the day through better endurance.
Zoidberg wrote:IMO your Dyson Sphere idea will be a total win for the game. Its an practical rule addon which enables to micromanage many planets much easier. OTOH the Dyson Sphere does not replace original game rules from MOO2, its just an addon, so its quite easy for it to shine...
MOO2 allowed you to build your own planets - Dyson spheres would not be a big change (just a very, very large planet) but, plausibly, would need vast amounts of materials to do. The Space Empires series includes Ringworlds and Dyson Spheres at the highest tech levels - and makes them very costly and time-consuming. But still way too quick to build in my view.
Zoidberg wrote:I mean there are a myriard "inspired by" MOO2 games out there and most if not every single of them failed in some aspects. There is a reason I think why they failed: mostly because their developers introduced fancy graphics and realtime and new own concepts but had no idea and experience how to design a game with good interconnected rules.
MOO2 had its failings too and there are situations where realtime does do better (e.g. in combat where it avoids the "who moves first" problem). But it is hard to do a design that works well throughout and MOO2 did well within its limitations.
Zoidberg wrote:This is a task the MOO2 designers, which where surely avid board-wargamers and as such well versed what a functional rulesystem should deliver, succeeded in those days...the real MOO3, we fans always wanted to see (replacing the Quicksilver-abomination we got)
MOO3 was designed by the same person (Steve Barcia) who did MOO2.
Teleros wrote:I suppose what I'd do as a dev in this case is (assuming MORE does great etc etc etc) offer a DLC pack or two. First to allow for "Advanced Colony Specialisation" or something on the game setup screen, so that you can build, say, multiple auto-factories on a colony, and second to allow for "Advanced Ground Combat" or whatever - for when you want to fight more interesting ground battles.
DLC?! Wash your mouth out with soap and water! :)

More seriously, while I would agree with having options for detailed combat and colony management (and maybe even leaving some for later as expansions), I would be hesitant in making them separate since they need to be interconnected to work well. Tactical space combat ties in with detailed ship design, as does ground combat with detailed colony design. And both would affect (and be affected by) the research and economy systems. So I don't think leaving major aspects of the game system to expansion sets is likely to work well.
knightdt wrote:Either way, we won't run out of these things but we will be rate limited. Managing resources in most 4x games is about rate and not quantity...I would much rather see MORE have multiple resources than just a single generic pool. Having more than three is arguably unnecessarily complex; but I do like Sid Meier's Civilization series take on luxury resources being highly regional (and thus requiring a larger number of total resources).
I think we are in agreement here - the ability to acquire resources is the limiting part and a good 4X game should model that well. MOO2 was a little too simplistic in my view (BC's only) while the Space Empires series with its Minerals, Radioactives and Organics was just about right (minerals being the most important for most races, but some did rely more heavily on organics).

One factor I like to use to judge a system is how easily a player can screw up if they're not paying attention. With MOO2, economics never raised problems that couldn't be fixed immediately (juggle those meeples!) but with SE you needed to keep a closer eye on your resource usage and ensure you were building enough factories to handle future demand (the increasing costs of high tech items made this more important still). Also with SE, trade could add a significant amount (50% or more) to your income, which meant that losing trade treaties could hit hard if you weren't prepared for it.

Teleros
Ideas & Texts Creator
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:18 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby Teleros » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:37 pm

knightdt wrote:I see that I wasn't clear. When I meant limited resources, I was not referring to the potential to actually run out of something. When I say that I have a limited amount of money, I'm actually referring to income - which is a rate and not a quantity.

Ah, I see.

knightdt wrote:Managing resources in most 4x games is about rate and not quantity (but there is a setting in Space Empires V where you can actually run out --- never played it before because I hear the computer can't handle it. Don't particularly feel like trying it anyway). My original post on limited resources was in defense of AstralWanderer referring to the space empires series having multiple resources. It didn't occur to me that you were perhaps thinking of the 'finite resources' option rather than referring to the management of multiple resources that are limited in your ability to exploit them.

Yeah I think so... I mean, to give one example, I liked the MOO2 gold / gem deposits: a nice way of making a colony more valuable in a way that doesn't impact the important things like "resources to build starships" (at least beyond "we've more money to spend on them").

knightdt wrote:I think AstralWanderer was referring only to the multiple resources and managing the limited potential rates you could achieve for each resource.

Yeah okay, that makes sense... however, if I were to have that model, then yeah I'd want multiple _____ extraction structures so I could maximise _____ output on a planet if I wanted.

knightdt wrote:I would much rather see MORE have multiple resources than just a single generic pool. Having more than three is arguably unnecessarily complex; but I do like Sid Meier's Civilization series take on luxury resources being highly regional (and thus requiring a larger number of total resources).

How about having them start highly regional, but with the option late-game to have other colonies develop them too (simple example: first you source tobacco from A, but then you start tobacco farms on B, C, D etc).

Nice article BTW :) .

knightdt wrote:As a matter of fact, when we go into a reservoir and pull out all of the oil that we bother to do before abandoning it, we are actually usually leaving behind somewhere around HALF of all the oil that was actually down there

Yeah I've heard of that :D . Friedman 1, Ehrlich 0 ;) .

knightdt wrote:If you need XYZ for your anti-matter space reactors, but you need food for your people, and you need raw metals for ships, and luxury goods to keep your people happy... You are managing limited resources.

I suppose the thing in a MOO2-style game is that the limited resources are workers & money. Managing more though... hmm. Big change to the game, certainly. Not bad, just... big.

knightdt wrote:I'd just like to comment on this one --- if we released excessive greenhouse gases on Mars then we would actually be doing the first stage of terraforming. The sooner we start, the sooner we can get the human race on Planet number Two. Let's do it. Now. :D

:D

AstralWanderer wrote:It doesn't have to involve SimCity-level detail, but conversely *not* being able to specify facility placement could be considered daft too. Location allows differentiation between large, environmentally-benign planets with lots of building space and small, barely habitable worlds with next to none (Imperium Galactica being a good example here). Location placement could allow a colony to be optimised for defence (with tight clusters of buildings giving each other supporting fire) or production (with sprawling metropoli and transport links aplenty).

I suppose if you want something like that, a multiple-choice option on founding a colony would work actually. "Pick one of the following: high defence, high efficiency, or high eco-preservation", each with set bonuses etc. Might also work better with regards to MORE's dyson spheres, especially if you invade whole dyson spheres at a time: the various defensive multipliers could be combined.

AstralWanderer wrote:GalCiv 2's system (which is pretty good in this area) allows you to build in some areas on-planet, with others being opened up once appropriate technologies are developed. Ascendancy requires all buildings to be linked to a starting point, either by other buildings or tunnels (if you want to exploit a specific resource square you have to decide whether to build tunnels to get there quickly, or buildings which increase production). Space Empires has a more abstract facility limit per planet which can be increased only under specific circumstances (successfully converting a planet's atmosphere).

Yeah... I just never liked those designs as much, mostly due to issues like limited space & the additional micro it would entail for really big games. Never played Ascendancy or SE, but did play GC2. It was fun, but not as good as MOO2 :P .

AstralWanderer wrote:In contrast, MOO2 allows maximum population to be increased but imposes no restriction on facilities built, so planet size has no effect and a fully outfitted planet with every enhancement can be run with just one meeple on board - you still want to say that's better?

Technically, yes 1 pop unit in MOO2 can run a fully developed planet... but not efficiently! A lot of MOO2 buildings gave bonuses to the workers: if you have no researchers, say, your researcher-buffing research lab is *literally* pointless.

AstralWanderer wrote:Population should be the underpinning of an economy but that doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down to a single figure. Resources (minerals, energy) are critical as is technology and sociology.

Which is where things like MOO2 happiness & certain colony improvements come into play. Consider a power plant that buffs worker output by +1 per worker (or +10% or whatever).

AstralWanderer wrote:CP's weren't related to economic output or mineral production, just the number of bases you had (with tech modifiers). So I don't consider them as "proper" maintenance. As for upgrades, I recall each ship requiring upgrading individually - no ability to order an empire-wide "change class X to Y" which the Space Empires series offers.

Ah I see, fair enough - dunno if MORE is planning bulk class changes though (might be nice though :) ). As for CP... yeah I suppose they are cheating a bit, but then you could always bump up the cost / maintenance of CP-providing things to balance it out a bit.

AstralWanderer wrote:The advantage of a supply system is that it opens up new design options. You could have scout vessels able to travel further than other ships but with the downside of less weapons/armour/shields.

Well, MOO2 did have a max FTL range thing, and I suppose it wouldn't be hard to say any ship with a Scout Lab (for example) gets +X maximum FTL range.

AstralWanderer wrote:Combat design options would be expanded since you could build a heavily-weaponed hard-hitter with only enough ammunition to last a couple of rounds (powerful but reliant on supply vessels) or a "turtle" design with enough supply storage to outlast other vessels able to carry the day through better endurance.

Sounds like a balancing nightmare TBH. "That's a nice balanced fleet, Mr AI. Meet my one-shot-one-kill Stellar Converter fleet..."

I exaggerate, but... yeah. Trade-offs like that can be pretty hard to balance. Not a bad idea (Honor Harrington mod for MORE anyone :D ?), just a problem.

AstralWanderer wrote:MOO2 allowed you to build your own planets - Dyson spheres would not be a big change (just a very, very large planet) but, plausibly, would need vast amounts of materials to do. The Space Empires series includes Ringworlds and Dyson Spheres at the highest tech levels - and makes them very costly and time-consuming. But still way too quick to build in my view.

I think MORE dyson spheres are just a UI feature to minimise the need to visit every planet in a 200-system empire.

AstralWanderer wrote:MOO2 had its failings too and there are situations where realtime does do better (e.g. in combat where it avoids the "who moves first" problem).

Yes but it then results in Starcraft 2 APM madness (and remember MOO2 has lots of weapons you can pick & choose to fire). If I were to have a realtime space combat system in MOO2 / MORE the best way to play it would be to spend 95% of your combat time paused, so you can maximise your fleet's effectiveness :P .

If you want to avoid "who shoots first", then have turns, but represent the effects of both player's turns simultaneously. That just leaves the issue of movement when fleets are very close to one another - irritating, but not the end of the world.

AstralWanderer wrote:MOO3 was designed by the same person (Steve Barcia) who did MOO2.

I think he probably had "help" though :P .

AstralWanderer wrote:DLC?! Wash your mouth out with soap and water! :)

:lol:

*Points to the devs* Their fault! Not mine!

AstralWanderer wrote:More seriously, while I would agree with having options for detailed combat and colony management (and maybe even leaving some for later as expansions), I would be hesitant in making them separate since they need to be interconnected to work well. Tactical space combat ties in with detailed ship design, as does ground combat with detailed colony design. And both would affect (and be affected by) the research and economy systems. So I don't think leaving major aspects of the game system to expansion sets is likely to work well.

Nope, but given the budget & kickstarter goals etc, that's what I think we'll get.

AstralWanderer wrote:One factor I like to use to judge a system is how easily a player can screw up if they're not paying attention. With MOO2, economics never raised problems that couldn't be fixed immediately (juggle those meeples!) but with SE you needed to keep a closer eye on your resource usage and ensure you were building enough factories to handle future demand (the increasing costs of high tech items made this more important still). Also with SE, trade could add a significant amount (50% or more) to your income, which meant that losing trade treaties could hit hard if you weren't prepared for it.

I'm not sure that's much more complex TBH, there's just a time lag in SE that's not there in MOO2. "L2 spam factories & trade agreements" vs "shift some pop units around". I exaggerate, because in both cases you have to balance your budget, military production, etc as well, but... yeah.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Space Empires 5 has up to only 100 star systems, correct? That's an order of magnitude less than MORE, at least. At some point, you have to sacrifice realism & complexity for avoiding turns that take an hour each :D .
Clear ether!

Tel
Ideas & Texts Creator
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby Tel » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:07 pm

Alan Emrich designed MOO3

AstralWanderer
Hearty Supporter
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:06 pm

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby AstralWanderer » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:06 am

Teleros wrote:Yeah okay, that makes sense... however, if I were to have that model, then yeah I'd want multiple _____ extraction structures so I could maximise _____ output on a planet if I wanted.
Agreed.
Teleros wrote:I suppose if you want something like that, a multiple-choice option on founding a colony would work actually. "Pick one of the following: high defence, high efficiency, or high eco-preservation", each with set bonuses etc...
Something similar to that could be achieved with AI governors/ministers, able to manage colonies to settings you dictate. The underlying details still need to be accessible though, for fine tuning (I want my megadeath laser batteries in a *neat line* dammit!), ground combat and control-freak players.
Teleros wrote:Yeah... I just never liked those designs as much, mostly due to issues like limited space & the additional micro it would entail for really big games. Never played Ascendancy or SE, but did play GC2. It was fun, but not as good as MOO2 :P .
I thought GC2 was a mediocre game myself, but it did have some good aspects to it (planet maps, ship constructor). Ascendancy had gaming issues too ("broken" space combat, poor AI) but did offer well-designed alien races and 3D star maps/tech charts.
Teleros wrote:Technically, yes 1 pop unit in MOO2 can run a fully developed planet... but not efficiently! A lot of MOO2 buildings gave bonuses to the workers: if you have no researchers, say, your researcher-buffing research lab is *literally* pointless.
Agreed - but the ability to create such a thing in the first place, regardless of planet size, condition or population is what I would criticise.
Teleros wrote:
AstralWanderer wrote:Population should be the underpinning of an economy but that doesn't mean it has to be dumbed down to a single figure. Resources (minerals, energy) are critical as is technology and sociology.

Which is where things like MOO2 happiness & certain colony improvements come into play. Consider a power plant that buffs worker output by +1 per worker (or +10% or whatever).
MOO2 does have some relevant tech, but minerals behave differently - population will increase exponentially over time (subject to space/food constraints) while minerals will decrease linearly/geometrically (limited quantities plus increasing difficulty of extraction). So minerals provide a need to continually find/exploit new resources/planets/systems to a greater extent than population (Too many people? Time for some bioweapons research...).
Teleros wrote:
AstralWanderer wrote:The advantage of a supply system is that it opens up new design options. You could have scout vessels able to travel further than other ships but with the downside of less weapons/armour/shields.
Well, MOO2 did have a max FTL range thing, and I suppose it wouldn't be hard to say any ship with a Scout Lab (for example) gets +X maximum FTL range.
MOO2 did include extra fuel tanks as a ship component, but having ship supply rules would offer finer control over ship range as well as allowing for strategically important resupply depots (and resupply agreements between emipres).
Teleros wrote:
AstralWanderer wrote:Combat design options would be expanded since you could build a heavily-weaponed hard-hitter with only enough ammunition to last a couple of rounds (powerful but reliant on supply vessels) or a "turtle" design with enough supply storage to outlast other vessels able to carry the day through better endurance.

Sounds like a balancing nightmare TBH. "That's a nice balanced fleet, Mr AI. Meet my one-shot-one-kill Stellar Converter fleet..."
But then that one-shot fleet would be near-useless (and highly vulnerable) until it got to a resupply depot or supply ship. Fielding such a force would mean your logistics would have to be far better than Mr AIs, and more vulnerable to sneak attacks. You would be making a choice of a tactical strength versus a strategic weakness - and the benefit of a supply system is that it allows you to make such a choice.
Teleros wrote:...If I were to have a realtime space combat system in MOO2 / MORE the best way to play it would be to spend 95% of your combat time paused, so you can maximise your fleet's effectiveness :P .
Homeworld is still the best example of realtime ship combat in my view and that allowed unlimited pause (though the first game in the series didn't allow you to issue any orders when paused). Space Empires V takes this a step further by allowing you to configure auto-pause where combat stops every interval (which could range from 0.5 to 30 seconds IIRC).
Teleros wrote:If you want to avoid "who shoots first", then have turns, but represent the effects of both player's turns simultaneously.
In combat, that raises the problem of how you handle orders that can't be completed (e.g. one of your ships not being able to complete its move since it would place it in the same location as an enemy). It would be the most realistic option (i.e. you giving orders but not knowing how they'll turn out) but, I would argue, less satisfying than pausable realtime system where you can react to any situation at your own pace.
Teleros wrote:
AstralWanderer wrote:DLC?! Wash your mouth out with soap and water! :)

:lol:

*Points to the devs* Their fault! Not mine!
*goes online to book crateful of soap for shipment to Poland*
Teleros wrote:I'm not sure that's much more complex TBH, there's just a time lag in SE that's not there in MOO2...
The time lag is certainly there, but due mainly to resource production being done by facilities in SE (which take time to build and take effect) rather than by population directly (changes to which are instant in MOO2).
Teleros wrote:Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Space Empires 5 has up to only 100 star systems, correct? That's an order of magnitude less than MORE, at least. At some point, you have to sacrifice realism & complexity for avoiding turns that take an hour each :D .
Mods in SE V can boost galaxy size to 255 systems but yes, it's a smaller scale than games offering thousands of stars. OTOH the only game I've come across offering (the option of) tens of thousands of star systems is Star Ruler and I found it to be too simple to enjoy. Horses for courses. ;)
Tel wrote:Alan Emrich designed MOO3
Oops, you're right. My bad. :(

Zoidberg
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:11 pm

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby Zoidberg » Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:05 am

Alan Emrichs only other game I ever liked was Totaler Krieg. Forget the rest.

I think Astralwanderer has a totally different view how a good game should look than myself. Thats fine. But of course I hope and trust the MORE designer will follow the well tested and tradtional MOO2 path (as they advertized, and what brought me here) and not some odd mix of SEIV and GalCiv.
Last edited by Zoidberg on Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Calavero
Site Admin
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby Calavero » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:15 pm

Today, We'd received in company crate of soap... signed by AstralWanderer... hmmm :roll: ... we are wondering what does it mean? Any ideas? ;)

We mainly want to create something like MoO2... and something M.O.R.E. :) but any good ideas which we will be able to include into our project are welcome.
M.O.R.E. under construction

Teleros
Ideas & Texts Creator
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:18 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby Teleros » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:07 am

Calavero wrote:any good ideas which we will be able to include into our project are welcome.

To be honest, the biggest thing I can recommend is to put as much of the game into an easy-to-mod format (LUA, XML etc) as possible. Second, an easy way to load said mods :) .
Clear ether!

AstralWanderer
Hearty Supporter
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:06 pm

Re: How many iterations of buildings shall we have?

Postby AstralWanderer » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:09 am

Teleros wrote:To be honest, the biggest thing I can recommend is to put as much of the game into an easy-to-mod format (LUA, XML etc) as possible. Second, an easy way to load said mods :) .
I think I can agree with that. :) Except for using XML - ini file format (item=value) seems easier to read and a good deal shorter.

Surprised that soap arrived so quickly though - maybe we should be asking the Polish post office to start working on M.O.R.E. :)


Return to “Economy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest