Does anyone here also likes space strategy games?

Spiker22 · January 2, 2001, 02:10

I basically enjoy any kinds of empire building games. Prefer turn-based but can live with real time ones. I found it very hard to get quality titles in this genre these days. Anyhow, next on my list are Stars Supernova Genesis and Civ3. Hope they are good!

Kyle · January 2, 2001, 16:45

I like them as well.

Take a look at Space Empires IV, which got a gold rating (I believe) at Gamesdomain.com
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/malfador/

And Galactic Civilizations from StarDock. This one looks promising as well.
www.stardock.com/products/galciv

January 2, 2001, 16:47

SMAC

The Mad Monk · January 7, 2001, 01:21

MoO2 rules!

I just purchesed SMAC from a warehouse club ($10...how can you argue with that?) and will try it as soon as I shake myself loose from Diablo 2. Again.

Bkeela · January 7, 2001, 14:21

Would anyone who is well versed in this game genre please list all the current and soon to be released space empire games?

The only recent one I have bought is Imperium Galactica II, which despite its fantastic graphics, doesn't come close to capturing the same magic Master Of Orion II has.

Bkeela.

Kyle · January 7, 2001, 17:24

Current, as in came out within the past few months...

Space Empires IV
Reach for the Stars
Imperium Galactica II

Coming...

Master of Orion 3
http://moo3.quicksilver.com/

Galactic Civilizatons
http://www.stardock.com/products/galciv/

Stars! Supernova Genesis
http://www.crisium.com/sn/snnews.htm

That's all I can think of right now.

Bkeela · January 8, 2001, 08:34

Thanks Kyle.

Out of them all, I think "Stars! Supernova Genesis" and "MoO3" are the most promising.

Galactic Civilizations looks nice, but I don't like the apparent impotence of the Terran race, and it being the only race you can play. It's a different concept, and It will take me a while to absorb this.

Space Empires IV looks the least appealing, especially if this is truly the Galaxy Map

Reach For The Stars doesn't impress me in the slightest. I've tried the demo, and it seems to lack the kind of magic Science Fiction universe I am hoping for.

Bkeela.

kcbob · January 8, 2001, 09:57

Before MOO2, I found Starflight and Starflight II to be very enjoyable. Haven't heard of an effort to create a Starflight III, though.

MOO3 will be a definite must have!!

------------------
Frodo lives!

Garth Vader · January 8, 2001, 11:27

The graphics aren't impressive in SE4, but the game play is exellent. I have found it as good as Moo2 and I am a huge moo2 fan!

January 8, 2001, 11:44

SMAC

Kyle · January 8, 2001, 16:06

quote:

Space Empires IV looks the least appealing, especially if this is truly the Galaxy Map

Oh, no. That's is a submap that shows who claims what system, where you have ships at. Basically a political map, from there you can claim systems as your own. It also shows which systems are contested.

Space Empires IV is a great game (based soley on the demo). The gameplay is amazing. You can literally do as much or as little as you want with the game. For example, I played once where I only controlled Diplomacy and research, while the Ministers colonized, explored, built up defenses, etc.

And SMAC isn't a "space strategy game." It's an SF, planet based Civ-esque game. When someone says space strategy, one usually means Master of Orion types.

Tis I · January 8, 2001, 20:47

The graphics in Space Empires IV aren't anything to write home about, certainly but if its anything like Space Empires III then the gameplay is excellent.

Gamespot and Cdmag.com have reviews. Gamespot review is as follows
http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filter...366559,00.html

They give it a 9 for gameplay, 4: graphics, 3: sound , and 10: Value and reviewers tilt. Down side is that you can only order online and i'll having trouble convincing parents to use the old credit card.

BTW does anyone have a registration code for SEIII while i'm waiting to get IV?

Urban Ranger · January 9, 2001, 01:35

I don't find Galatic Civilization bad at all. Of course, I haven't played the original OS/2 game, and the information they have on the website is quite sketchy.

At any rate, this is one of the two classic Sci-Fi settings. The first one, such as MoO, is where everybody are on parity, more or less. The second one is the classic "David vs Goliath" in space. The classic GDW boardgame Imperium and the computer game Star Control 2 are both fine examples of this.

MidKnight Lament · January 9, 2001, 02:51

If Stars! ever ends up being released it'll be cool. We've been waiting _forever_

------------------
- MKL
"And a sun that doesn't set but settles" - Augie March
Shameless Plug: http://www.poetic-license.org ............. All welcome.

Urban Ranger · January 10, 2001, 03:11

Reach for the Stars is all combat. Blah

Space Empires IV doesn't impress me after mucking with the demo. Then again, some people swear by it, so I gather that's just a difference in preferences.

MoO 3 doesn't sound so impressive either from what I can gather. They finally recognised some of the design mistakes made in MoO 2 though and switch to a model more closely resemble the original.

January 10, 2001, 12:14

SMAC

Garth Vader · January 11, 2001, 01:05

Well Moo3 looks like they are solving some but not all of the problems of Moo2. One thing I am looking foreward to is the real time combat. Turn based combat is a joke in space strategy games, an enemy can have advantage in numbers, range, and speed and you can still kick ass because you fire first and destroy half of their ships before they get a chance to fire.

At least they say their RTS combat model will be like naval warfare, rather then some kind of frenzied click-fest melee like C&C.

Urban Ranger · January 11, 2001, 12:05

The idea of initiative is present in a lot of games. Heck, even D&D has it. There's nothing wrong with the idea itself; many games have implemented it successfully. The problem arises when the technology favours attacks too much so that a ship could overwhelm several dozen. In other words, the problem lies with balance. Introducing real-time mode is not the solution: a computer always move faster than a player can. What they need to do is to focus on balance.

Garth Vader · January 11, 2001, 12:54

The problem is also with numbers. If I have 10 ships and you have 10 ships and my initive is just a little bit more than yours all 10 of my ships can fire first. Even if I only destroy 2-3 ships that is signifigant.

In order for turn based to be suitable you would need a kind of split turn, where you alternate based on initive. With a kind of action point system and interrupts. Actually kind of like the Xcom tactical combat system.

Qilue · January 12, 2001, 04:58

Birth of the Federation's space combat was a sort of hybrid turn-based/real time affair. Each combat round, you gave orders to your fleet, and the enemy did his/her orders and both acted at the same time.

Garth Vader · January 12, 2001, 11:22

That was the only think I liked about BOTF. The only problem with it's combat was ships could kill eachother too fast. Later in the game most combats were only one round of the straight ahead strategy. I had a few good combats of many rounds of different manouvers in the early game.

shmily_dana · January 12, 2001, 14:12

Best thing about BOTF was the screen saver.

The Mad Monk · January 12, 2001, 19:17

Garth, did you install the patch, and activated the option that allowed individual ship initiative?

Urban Ranger · January 13, 2001, 01:14

A game that has a really good initiative system is the boardgame Starfleet Battles. Unfortunately the delicate balance didn't make it over to Starfleet Command, the computer game. Activision made it real-time, which totally killed the initiative system. Since the game is quite an intricate interwoven whole, killing off one part causes the whole system to unravel.

At any rate, the tactical combat in MoO 2 has some resemblance to SFB, but totally lacks the balance.

There's another thing I don't like about MoO 2. Ground bases and fixed installations always go last. Why can't they have computers and experience just like ships? Again, I think this is done so combat is even tipped more in favour of attackers.

Garth Vader · January 15, 2001, 11:13

Yes, I installed the patch, but very rarely do you get an alternating effect in combat. If you have better computer tech, all your ships usually have it and they all go first. I have had a few combats where we were really close and basically alternated, and that was cool.

Dr Strangelove · January 25, 2001, 19:59

quote:

Originally posted by kcbob on 01-08-2001 08:57 AM
Before MOO2, I found Starflight and Starflight II to be very enjoyable. Haven't heard of an effort to create a Starflight III, though.

MOO3 will be a definite must have!!

You're in luck! As it happens there is a group attempting to make a Starflight 3.
They can be found at :www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2571/SF3main.html Their server is currently down, but should be back up someday soon.

Zkribbler · January 25, 2001, 22:29

quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 01-11-2001 11:05 AM
a computer always move faster than a player can.

My understanding of the way MOO3 will work is that the player is more like an admiral than a captain. That is, he will order squadrons and ships to go to such-and-such a location, and then the ships themselves will battle. Thus, it won't be the frenzied clickfest that most RTS games turn into.

[This message has been edited by Zkribbler (edited January 25, 2001).]