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
. 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.
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.
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
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
?), 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
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
DLC?! Wash your mouth out with soap and water!
*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