|
Personally I didn't care that much for the ship designing elements of this game, it just didn't feel like it made any difference whatsoever when it came to results in combat and it just doesn't have the visual/information components to make the designing compelling in and of itself.
If you compare it to another relatively recent space strategy, Stardrive, the problems become apparent very quickly. In Stardrive you get a grid-view of your ship's hull that you then place objects on, meaning that you get to see each and every cannon/shield generator/engine etc. And while the designing may not be particularly complex or intricate in terms of the numbers/stats, there is a basic foundation of what a ship needs to be functional, unlike ES where you can make a ship with nothing but plasma beams and be perfectly fine. I can't say that I've done the math on the weapon/armor support modules, but nothing I've experienced in the game tells me that they're ever worth picking up in favor of just straight weapons and defence.
Which leads me to the combat, the whole ''one stat to summarize the entire ship'' -idea is very awkward and only serves to make combat and ship building feel completely pointless and empty. And at the same time it's also misleading because there is plenty of times when a fleet with 1000 military power can make a 5k fleet its bitch. The card system really only serves to make you take 3 seconds to resolve a battle instead of 1, and personally I can't say that randomly countering all 3 AI cards feels satisfying in any way. I also really dislike the way they handle fleets, the cap on amount of ships in a fleet is way too low from the start and even late into the game the cap is still too low. But what really bugs me is that engagements are always 1 fleet vs 1 fleet, no matter how many fleets a player has in the given system, which makes relying on large numbers of lower tech ships a huge pain in the ass, a much bigger pain than it should be imo.
All that said, it's still good enough in the technology/economy/expansion areas to be worth playing if you happen to like that type of game. Like some people already pointed out, playing a small empire really isn't viable which is a bit sad, but I don't think its that bad, you only really need to landgrab very early, after that there are some tech paths you can take that makes slow expanding viable.
|
On July 15 2013 21:19 Blondinbengt wrote: Personally I didn't care that much for the ship designing elements of this game, it just didn't feel like it made any difference whatsoever when it came to results in combat and it just doesn't have the visual/information components to make the designing compelling in and of itself.
If you compare it to another relatively recent space strategy, Stardrive, the problems become apparent very quickly. In Stardrive you get a grid-view of your ship's hull that you then place objects on, meaning that you get to see each and every cannon/shield generator/engine etc. And while the designing may not be particularly complex or intricate in terms of the numbers/stats, there is a basic foundation of what a ship needs to be functional, unlike ES where you can make a ship with nothing but plasma beams and be perfectly fine. I can't say that I've done the math on the weapon/armor support modules, but nothing I've experienced in the game tells me that they're ever worth picking up in favor of just straight weapons and defence.
Which leads me to the combat, the whole ''one stat to summarize the entire ship'' -idea is very awkward and only serves to make combat and ship building feel completely pointless and empty. And at the same time it's also misleading because there is plenty of times when a fleet with 1000 military power can make a 5k fleet its bitch. The card system really only serves to make you take 3 seconds to resolve a battle instead of 1, and personally I can't say that randomly countering all 3 AI cards feels satisfying in any way. I also really dislike the way they handle fleets, the cap on amount of ships in a fleet is way too low from the start and even late into the game the cap is still too low. But what really bugs me is that engagements are always 1 fleet vs 1 fleet, no matter how many fleets a player has in the given system, which makes relying on large numbers of lower tech ships a huge pain in the ass, a much bigger pain than it should be imo.
All that said, it's still good enough in the technology/economy/expansion areas to be worth playing if you happen to like that type of game. Like some people already pointed out, playing a small empire really isn't viable which is a bit sad, but I don't think its that bad, you only really need to landgrab very early, after that there are some tech paths you can take that makes slow expanding viable.
I feel you haven't experienced the (current) combat enough to base your opinion on it. The cards play a pretty big role and so does ship design. The AI will, in a prolonged war, even counter your designs with ships whose weapons you have little defense against and vice versa. I agree that the "combat strength" number (and it's calculation) doesn't make much sense though.
|
Perhaps your experience changes based on what sort of race you play, but from the point of view of going quite heavy on diplomacy and science, I found the game to be an atmospheric civ in space which has quite a few redeeming features that go some length to counteract the drawbacks you accurately outlined blondingbert.
|
I wrote a backstory for my custom faction that is like a good version of the Empire in case anyone is for some bizarre reason interested or would like to share their own...
"The Syndicate were a relatively large faction in the political landscape of the United Empire, composed of several rich, powerful and benevolent giants of industry and their considerable personal armies and territories. They loyally served the Empire for hundreds of years only to be rewarded with less and less control over the direction their society moved in.
As the United Empire became more rapacious, paying less heed to the growing inequality and injustice that festered at its core, the leaders of the syndicate faced a choice - keep their collective heads bowed or strike out on their own, bearing the brunt of the inevitable resultant enmity. A council was convened in secret on the third centennial of the Empire's birth by the then president of the Syndicate, Ustimar Jon II. It voted unanimously in favour of the former option.
Ustimar saw fit to break the news to the Heads of the Empire himself, whereupon he was cast in shackles and taken to be flogged to death. They say he lasted seven days and nights before he finally passed away, and even then he only allowed himself to die after hearing the executioners discussing the shocking news that the Syndicate evacuation fleet had successfully outmanoeuvred and escaped the pursuit of the Grand Omega Fleet of the Empire.
His democratically elected successor authored a bill, passed by a landslide majority in the Democratic Congress of the Syndicate (DCS) to posthumously grant Ustimar the title of 'First Father'. Since then, the capital city of every planet colonised in the Syndicate's name has been named after him, and his legacy has inspire the billions of Syndicate citizens to unflinchingly follow the ideals their forefathers left the Empire to preserve and refine."
|
On July 15 2013 23:17 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 21:19 Blondinbengt wrote: Personally I didn't care that much for the ship designing elements of this game, it just didn't feel like it made any difference whatsoever when it came to results in combat and it just doesn't have the visual/information components to make the designing compelling in and of itself.
If you compare it to another relatively recent space strategy, Stardrive, the problems become apparent very quickly. In Stardrive you get a grid-view of your ship's hull that you then place objects on, meaning that you get to see each and every cannon/shield generator/engine etc. And while the designing may not be particularly complex or intricate in terms of the numbers/stats, there is a basic foundation of what a ship needs to be functional, unlike ES where you can make a ship with nothing but plasma beams and be perfectly fine. I can't say that I've done the math on the weapon/armor support modules, but nothing I've experienced in the game tells me that they're ever worth picking up in favor of just straight weapons and defence.
Which leads me to the combat, the whole ''one stat to summarize the entire ship'' -idea is very awkward and only serves to make combat and ship building feel completely pointless and empty. And at the same time it's also misleading because there is plenty of times when a fleet with 1000 military power can make a 5k fleet its bitch. The card system really only serves to make you take 3 seconds to resolve a battle instead of 1, and personally I can't say that randomly countering all 3 AI cards feels satisfying in any way. I also really dislike the way they handle fleets, the cap on amount of ships in a fleet is way too low from the start and even late into the game the cap is still too low. But what really bugs me is that engagements are always 1 fleet vs 1 fleet, no matter how many fleets a player has in the given system, which makes relying on large numbers of lower tech ships a huge pain in the ass, a much bigger pain than it should be imo.
All that said, it's still good enough in the technology/economy/expansion areas to be worth playing if you happen to like that type of game. Like some people already pointed out, playing a small empire really isn't viable which is a bit sad, but I don't think its that bad, you only really need to landgrab very early, after that there are some tech paths you can take that makes slow expanding viable. I feel you haven't experienced the (current) combat enough to base your opinion on it. The cards play a pretty big role and so does ship design. The AI will, in a prolonged war, even counter your designs with ships whose weapons you have little defense against and vice versa. I agree that the "combat strength" number (and it's calculation) doesn't make much sense though.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean that the cards don't have an effect, my point was that it doesn't really add any depth to the combat itself. The idea that the AI picks up on what cards you are using is cool, but it just doesn't make up for the fact that in the end it only means that every couple of battles you swap the cards you are using. On the topic of ship design making a difference, it absolutely does. But the difference isn't nearly big enough and the game doesn't give you enough feedback to make it feel like it has an impact. Like I said, I can't claim to have gone over the numbers, but just for fun I made some different fleets with only beams/only long range and a bunch of different combos, at no point did I ever get the feeling that my designs were having any big impact.
I will absolutely admit that the way I like to build my empires in games like this, tech/industry, makes me biased in the sense that in my games I have the production to pump out infinite ships early in the game which means that I can be more careless with my fleets. But having said that, the combat just feels too lackluster for there to be much interest in trying a military playthrough, I probably will at some point, but I just don't see what would be fun about that, there just isn't enough depth/visual feedback in the ship/fleet management/design to provide any enjoyment.
|
On July 16 2013 01:21 sc4k wrote: Perhaps your experience changes based on what sort of race you play, but from the point of view of going quite heavy on diplomacy and science, I found the game to be an atmospheric civ in space which has quite a few redeeming features that go some length to counteract the drawbacks you accurately outlined blondingbert. I absolutely agree, if you're a person that enjoys those aspects of 4x games I would recommend it in a heartbeat. It's just a shame that we so rarely get 4x/grand strategy games that can provide compelling combat/military options while also giving you all the freedom and ''overlord''-options that makes empire building such a treat.
|
I can give you an example from a game I played just a few hours ago, and the best thing is, it makes us both right:
I was playing with the Sheredyn (on endless difficulty) and had built a fleet consisting of ships with balanced defense and only missiles as weapons. The game rated the combat strength of my fleet as 5000ish. I started a war with the united empire and when I encountered their main fleet it was rated at ~16000. After my initial "WTF" I checked their equipment. It turned out that they were purely relying on tons of kinetic weapons and had no missile defense whatsoever. Now kinetic weapons are most useful in the melee phase while missiles are strongest at long range. So I figured I might destroy sufficient ships with my first missile volley so that the rest of the battle wouldn't be so bad. I played an offensive battle card in phase 1 and 2 defensive ones after. I turned out to be right and while all my ships were heavily damaged, I lost none while destroying every enemy ship. Point in case: Design and cards matter and the combat strength value calculation is completely nonsensical.
|
Kinetic weapons are also just garbage anyways because you die long before you make it to the useful phases...where beams are better anyways.
|
Not really. There's plenty of use for kinetic weapons- they're really good with sniper trait, have better long range tonnage than beams, cost no strategic resources and are easier/earlier to reach in the tech tree.
|
On July 17 2013 08:04 Monsen wrote: Not really. There's plenty of use for kinetic weapons- they're really good with sniper trait, have better long range tonnage than beams, cost no strategic resources and are easier/earlier to reach in the tech tree.
Did they changed them ? They were also the harder to counter aswell. On early game missiles are the way to go against AI, and most players because it is unlikely they will have missile deffense, but you certainly can completely nullify a missile spam player with chaffs soon enough. Beams also give you plenty of time because of the research tree.
|
I've played this game quite a bit the last few days (yay for steam sale!) and really liked a lot of aspects of it. Has anyone managed a diplomatic victory at higher difficulties, though?
It just seems so damn hard to keep your neighbors happy, all wars I get thrown in early on tend to drag on for a long time and even if I maintain peace with my neighbors eventually some AI on the other side of the map starts getting too big and I end up having to deal with it.
|
Diplo victory is probably the hardest one to achieve and yeah, I've done it on endless. The map layouts (and AI races) play a major role in it's difficulty. On a 8 Spiral it's way easier to keep the peace than for example on a disc same goes for good vs evil races (cravers are obviously a nono for this). Concerning the kinetic weapons I can only refer to the new addon- in classic ES things were a lot different and they truly were the worst weapon type.
|
I lost my entire day yesterday playing this, and I'm still pretty ambivalent. On one hand, I absolutely love the planet/system building aspect. Colonizing a new system is exciting, the planet features are interesting, and the middle map tussle in a 8 arm spiral is really cool (terraforming planets into Oceans as Amoeba is so satisfying lol). On the other, the battle system does get pretty old pretty fast, and the apparent depth starts to shallow out quickly as one enters the late game. I'm about to win my first game, on normal, and the opponents did not seem that challenging due to my having the luck to start with multiple 6 planet systems right next to my home system.
All that said, I'll probably keep playing, because I don't know have any means of comparing this with other space 4x games. Are there are any that y'all would recommend?
|
Well, there's always Master of Orion 2. It's the Broodwar of space4x. Other than that I remember enjoying Birth of the Federation but both of these are somewhat old.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 18 2013 04:03 farvacola wrote: I lost my entire day yesterday playing this, and I'm still pretty ambivalent. On one hand, I absolutely love the planet/system building aspect. Colonizing a new system is exciting, the planet features are interesting, and the middle map tussle in a 8 arm spiral is really cool (terraforming planets into Oceans as Amoeba is so satisfying lol). On the other, the battle system does get pretty old pretty fast, and the apparent depth starts to shallow out quickly as one enters the late game. I'm about to win my first game, on normal, and the opponents did not seem that challenging due to my having the luck to start with multiple 6 planet systems right next to my home system.
All that said, I'll probably keep playing, because I don't know have any means of comparing this with other space 4x games. Are there are any that y'all would recommend? Other good 4x space games I've played are Galactic Civilizations 2 and Distant Worlds. But from the sounds of it, this is at least equally good on the explore/expand/exploit front and probably not much worse on the exterminate front. Though, Galactic Civ 2 does have pretty good AI. And Combat in 4x games is something I've always found to be lacking.
|
On July 18 2013 06:32 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 04:03 farvacola wrote: I lost my entire day yesterday playing this, and I'm still pretty ambivalent. On one hand, I absolutely love the planet/system building aspect. Colonizing a new system is exciting, the planet features are interesting, and the middle map tussle in a 8 arm spiral is really cool (terraforming planets into Oceans as Amoeba is so satisfying lol). On the other, the battle system does get pretty old pretty fast, and the apparent depth starts to shallow out quickly as one enters the late game. I'm about to win my first game, on normal, and the opponents did not seem that challenging due to my having the luck to start with multiple 6 planet systems right next to my home system.
All that said, I'll probably keep playing, because I don't know have any means of comparing this with other space 4x games. Are there are any that y'all would recommend? Other good 4x space games I've played are Galactic Civilizations 2 and Distant Worlds. But from the sounds of it, this is at least equally good on the explore/expand/exploit front and probably not much worse on the exterminate front. Though, Galactic Civ 2 does have pretty good AI. And Combat in 4x games is something I've always found to be lacking. Awesome, thanks. I don't have experience with space 4x games so it's sorta hard to figure out what's good. I'll check out Galactic Civilizations 2 after ES loses it's allure.
|
Bumping this thread because their new game "Endless Legend" just left early access. Anyone playing it?
|
On September 21 2014 10:18 KillerSOS wrote: Bumping this thread because their new game "Endless Legend" just left early access. Anyone playing it? meeee, had it since early access. I enjoy it. needs a bit more polishing tho
|
|
Got Endless Legend on Friday. I played for around ~26hours according to Steam. So far I am enjoying the game a lot. I like that the factions are really different, there are tons of win conditions and the general level of complexity. Ah and I like the combat system more than the ones from let's say civ 4 or civ 5. But I still have to check out how much replay value there is from difficulty and map settings.
Minor complaints: Balance between factions questionable. Got my main quest bugged once, and wasn't able to continue it. Luckily happened early in the game. At the beginning the different win conditions are very unclear, should be added to the very brief tutorial. I still don't know how a diplomacy victory is supposed to work. Late in the game turn transitions becomes very unsmooth and slow (Not that unusual for 4x though).
To further investigate: If the AI is more of a threat on difficulties higher than Normal. The Diplomacy System, which I only have briefly touched so far.
|
|
|
|