4X A little Survey about 4X Games

[Destroid]

How do people feel about MoO1 (sliders) research as opposed to MoO2 or Civ style (one project at a time)?

 

[tuluse]

Depends how the sliders are done. Imperialism 2 had a really cool way of doing research where it was specific projects you could fund, and you were free to fund them at whatever level you wanted with diminishing returns the more you funded.

 

[Destroid]

Depends how the sliders are done. Imperialism 2 had a really cool way of doing research where it was specific projects you could fund, and you were free to fund them at whatever level you wanted with diminishing returns the more you funded.

That is a good way to make the sliders meaningful, going back and checking the manual this is how MoO1 does it:

Each year that you invest research points in a device, you also get
“interest” on the amount you have invested. The interest is either 15% of your
total, or an amount equal to what you are adding this year, whichever is
lower. This encourages a steady investment in your research, as opposed to a
“crash” funding.

Additionally, you will have less "waste" of RP if you don't overshoot the target too much and wait a few turns for the dice to favour you:

After the Base Cost has been invested in its research, your scientists have a
chance of a breakthrough, as long as you continue to fund that research.
Your chance of breakthrough increases by 1% for every 2% of the Base Cost
you invest in addition.

Reducing your funding to 0 is a bad idea...

If your research spending in a given technology drops to 0, you have
effectively shelved the research for that device, and get no chance of discovery on that turn. In addition, you lose 10% of the amount already invested
each turn, until you begin research again.

This is a pretty cool system, but the game doesn't do anything to communicate these systems to the player, it really needs some UI feedback to make this stuff useful. Perhaps a warning when you are letting your tech decay, and an indicator of how much interest you will earn to help you get a better return (although perhaps that last would just encourage pointless micro).

 

[Dim]

Answered survey. What it look like now?

 

[tiagocc0]

Answered survey. What it look like now?

Thanks!


Here it is:
1. Do you like Space 4X Games?

63 / Yes
3 / I don't mind
0 / No


2. What X do you prefer in a 4X Game?
19 / eXplore
20 / eXpand
17 / eXploit
10 / eXterminate

3. What is the most important aspect in a Space 4X Game?
22 / Research
12 / War
8 / Ship Design
17 / Diplomacy
12 / Other

4. What is the worst aspect in current Space 4X Games?
5 / Research
16 / War
6 / Ship Design
29 / Diplomacy
14 / Other

 

[Temaperacl]

Took the survey.

I agree with the AI comments above - I'm sure the lack of good AI is one of the big reasons why VGA Planets is still one of my favorites. Space - Glory Through Conquest was good when I played it although it never had the same sort of scope or potential options. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to play multiplayer strategy games for the past 10 years or so, and the AI on single player games is awfully lacking especially, for some reason, in the space-based games.

 

[tiagocc0]

I haven't heard of VGA Planets, how does it play like?

 

[GarfunkeL]

Concluido.

 

[Gwahlur]

Just took the survey. Seems like lots of people have the same gripes with 4X games as I do.

 

[tiagocc0]

Thanks GarfunkeL and Gwahlur!

 

[hoverdog]

Just took the survey. Seems like lots of people have the same gripes with 4X games as I do.

I wonder why

 

[Telengard]

Old school modder of Civ here.

Something I have always wanted to see from the AI is a more complex system governing its actions, instead of a single function counting down to war that various modifiers are applied to. But right off, when comparing two empires for war, the AI should compare not just current military might, but known industrial capacity and banked gold. If their fleet is larger than mine, but by the time they get to me my fleet is 5x the size of theirs, their war was stupid. On the other side of things, if I am far more powerful, that fact shouldn't just apply a negative to the countdown to war, it should counter the chance of war completely. At least in any situation that doesn't involve alliances or a last desperate bid to win.

For the more complex AI, what I wanted to see is - instead of a rating of civ aggressiveness from 1 to 5 and then said number applied to the countdown to war, using a rating of (just throwing some number out there) -1 to 5., with the "war risk countdown level" starting at 0, and that level having a minimum of 0. Then civ aggressiveness and other factors start the countdown to chance to declare war. Thus, passive civs (with their negative aggressiveness) have to be provoked to war, instead of also needing to be countered with positive actions just like the aggressive civs.

Then have additional counters in addition to the countdown to war, such as one for friendliness level. If that one counts up, then the civ forms a stronger and stronger alliance, which alliance then requires greater and greater provocation for the AI to break. At the highest alliance level, the civs can even share borders in reasonable comfort. With a civs friendliness rating adding in to how willing it is to make and keep such pacts. Then a third counter detailing how insular a civ is, determining how willing it is to enter into trade pacts with civs that don't share its values. Thus, good, long-standing trade relations can break down barriers and open trade relations with even insular societies, if trade can be maintained that long, while open mercantile civs are easy to make trade pacts with.

On a secondary note, I have always taken personal issue with the power levels for military units starting at 1 and counting up from there. They should start somewhere numerically higher, so the power curve isn't so steep. Even if you just start at 2 (reserving 1s for support units), you've got two unit unlocks before military power doubles, instead of one unlock.

 

[tuluse]

On a secondary note, I have always taken personal issue with the power levels for military units starting at 1 and counting up from there. They should start somewhere numerically higher, so the power curve isn't so steep. Even if you just start at 2 (reserving 1s for support units), you've got two unit unlocks before military power doubles, instead of one unlock.

Civ 4 did exactly that. Civ 5 took it further with the basic warrior starting at 6.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Survey done.

 

[tiagocc0]

Survey done.

Thanks Zarniwoop!

Thanks Telengard for the explanation.

 

[Raghar]

Old school modder of Civ here.

Something I have always wanted to see from the AI is a more complex system governing its actions, instead of a single function counting down to war that various modifiers are applied to.

And how would you prevent players from gaming the system? A simple system is dysfunctional, but it's foolproof and resilient against abuse.

 

[Telengard]

Old school modder of Civ here.

Something I have always wanted to see from the AI is a more complex system governing its actions, instead of a single function counting down to war that various modifiers are applied to.

And how would you prevent players from gaming the system? A simple system is dysfunctional, but it's foolproof and resilient against abuse.

A simplistic system in the vein of civ is easy to control. Since it's just stacks of +s and -s to a counter, once you know the formula, it's easy to make the civs do what you want. You just have to ensure their one counter stays where you want it to be for whatever you want them to do. After all, with a single line, it's just a yes/no formula. Are we nearing the countdown threshold for war? Then: No, I will have nothing to do with you, you are evil incarnate! Are we high above the threshhold for war? Then: Yes, you are a bosom friend, I will do whatever you want. Or, have a bunch of negative things been done on purpose to a tiny nation? Then: I mad, I declare war on you! Thanks for the free cities.

Wait, your tiny nation dragged a big nation into the war? Here big civ, take one of the cities won from your ally. Thank you, you are a bosom friend, let us make peace. No no, thank you. Wait, before you go, here is another city taken from your former ally, why don't you go attack this other civ that's your equal in power and exhaust each other in war? Indeed I shall, friend for life!

Being a bosom friend should take time and effort on my part, not just manipulating a few minor factors for near-instant gain. And declaration of war should consider a number of factors before a civ thinks it's viable, not just whether it's "angry" on a single counting line.

 

[tiagocc0]

95 responses, it's going to close at 100, because that's the free plan limit.. I should have seen this sooner, I was willing to pay to be able to lift the limit but the plan above free costs 50$ per month.. oh well.
I want to thank everyone, this survey will really help me with StarLife and it's great to see that there so many people interested in Space 4X games!

EDIT: I stand corrected, it seems it will let people do the survey even after 100 responses, I have to pay to seem more than 100 though but it can be any month.

And the value is $24, so I will let it go on and then pay later to get and result and share it here.
The site however was showing in BRL so it was R$49 for me which I thought was $49 USD.

 

[Fart Master]

The absolute best strategy game AI's are the ones that simulate the way the actual faction would act like in the game world. It never ever works when you attempt to make a 'challenging human-like AI'. There's nothing more annoying than a single player strategy game where the AI backstabs you 25/7 just because it wants to win. Impossible to have a meaningful diplomacy system like that.

 

[Destroid]

The absolute best strategy game AI's are the ones that simulate the way the actual faction would act like in the game world. It never ever works when you attempt to make a 'challenging human-like AI'. There's nothing more annoying than a single player strategy game where the AI backstabs you 25/7 just because it wants to win. Impossible to have a meaningful diplomacy system like that.

A good point, MoO + 2's AIs were explicitly designed like this. Which I suppose makes it a simulation.

tiagocc0 can you post an update of the survey results?

 

[tiagocc0]

Spoiler

 

[Temaperacl]

I haven't heard of VGA Planets, how does it play like?

Looks like they converted it over to a web based format as well: Planets Nu. This seems to be a relatively faithful translation of VGAP.

Just a warning that I'm not so good with explaining games. That having been said:
It is a PBEM speed game (generally one turn a day or slower - several month games have always been normal). The main objects of control are planets, ships, and starbases.

There are a number of selectable race which are very obvious pulls from Star Trek, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica. Each one has various advantages and disadvantages. For example, one of the games I am in I am playing the Privateers, which have some ships that move at twice the normal speed, kill enemy crew at 3x the normal rate (ships are captured at 0 crew), and have a special "rob ship" mission that they can use to steal from enemy ships.

Planets are mineable for 4 different resources that have variable quantities and densities. Each planet has colonists that you place or native inhabitants. Each native inhabitant type and native government type gives different bonus (mining bonuses, easier taxation, or bonus tech levels at starbases built at that planet). Both population types grow based on the planet temperature and tax rate.

Below is my home planet on the left and the map as of turn 4 - I've colonized 3 planets (one on turn 2, two on turn 3). I have 4 ships, marked by the green circles and the lines mark the paths of the ships. I've highlighted one of my planets that has a native Amphibian race (Grants Tech Level 10 Beam Weapons to starbases around that planet).

Spoiler

Each Starbase takes a certain amount of resources to build and, as indicated, has it's own tech levels and uses the resources from the planet below to build ships.

Spoiler

Ships are built from base components (Each race has different, although overlapping, sets of hulls available. The beam weapons, engines, and torpedo types are standard.) . The slot type and count for each hull type are set. For example, below I am building a Lady Royale Class Cruiser. This always takes 2 engines, up to 4 Beam Weapons, and up to 1 torpedo launcher. Engine-Wise, I'm adding the top level, but otherwise, I'm going with mid to low-tier weaponry. This ship is being built not as a frontline fighter, but as a transport and credit generator (The Lady Royale Class has the special ability that if it is carrying clans (settlers), it will generate credits for each clan it is carrying).

The ships I've been building before this have been armed, cloakable transports that I can use to both spread colonies and capture any enemies I run into early if I don't think they are good candidates for an alliance.

Spoiler

Combat is very simple - one ship vs another ship at a time with no fine control. I haven't been in combat in the new game yet, but below is a shot from the combat visualizer from of of the battles of the last turn of the previous championship. Green triangles are fighters. The blue stars are torpedoes. Red lines are beam shots. Numbers next to the torpedo/fighter are the number available on that ship. These items generally need to be built at starbases, so it is possible to run out if you don't pay attention.

Spoiler

Below is a sample of the map of the final turn of the championship - the colored circles represent minefields (Except the yellow which are natural Ion storms).

Spoiler

And if you try out Planets Nu, you will notice that it does have a "Premier member" option that you can use. Otherwise, you are limited to tech 7 on starbases unless they are built around a planet with a native race that gives an automatic tech 10. As an interesting side note, this is exactly the same limitation that was present for unregistered players of the original Shareware game. Never posed a problem in the games I used to play (Since we either all played registered or all unregistered to keep an even playing field). Seems like it would be kind of pay-to-win with the online version, although it wouldn't make up for significant skill differences, especially for a Federation player.

 

[tiagocc0]

Very interesting, thank you.
I will try Planets Nu

 

[Syl]

Completed the survey.

5. What Space 4X Game do you like the most?
Ascendancy

I didn't see this game mentioned in the thread. Exploration, research and ship design are strong points. Combat is meh.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

95 responses, it's going to close at 100, because that's the free plan limit.. I should have seen this sooner, I was willing to pay to be able to lift the limit but the plan above free costs 50$ per month.. oh well.
I want to thank everyone, this survey will really help me with StarLife and it's great to see that there so many people interested in Space 4X games!

EDIT: I stand corrected, it seems it will let people do the survey even after 100 responses, I have to pay to seem more than 100 though but it can be any month.

And the value is $24, so I will let it go on and then pay later to get and result and share it here.
The site however was showing in BRL so it was R$49 for me which I thought was $49 USD.

You have to pay to conduct an online survey?