Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Sword of the Stars 2: Electric Boogaloo

Will Sword of the Stars II be significantly different from the first one?

  • More of the same

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • Significantly different, better

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Significantly different, worse

    Votes: 7 50.0%

  • Total voters
    14

Zarniwoop

TESTOSTERONIC As Fuck™
Patron
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
18,646
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
LOL I demand that this game work with DOS 5.0 or no buy!!!!

Come on, bitching about an ancient OS that needs to be held together with duct tape to even work, not being supported anymore is a bit lame even for the Codex.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
So for 10 years XP didn't need any duct tape to normally work but then retarded sheep Zarniwoop heard about the new cool M$ OS and suddenly XP is a broken mess
 

Korgan

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,238
Location
Fahrfromjuden
While 90% of all games released continue to support XP and a lot of great older stuff works poorly with 7, I'm not going to switch my OS. Case closed.
 

Marobug

Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
566
Actually, there's a 99% chance that if it works on xp it will work on win7 too.
 

Zarniwoop

TESTOSTERONIC As Fuck™
Patron
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
18,646
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
MetalCraze said:
So for 10 years XP didn't need any duct tape to normally work but then retarded sheep Zarniwoop heard about the new cool M$ OS and suddenly XP is a broken mess

XP, just like any OS, needs more and more patches/service packs/crap as time goes on. XP was the greatest Windows ever when it came out, but that was loooong ago. By the time SP2 came out it was already a broken mess, and I was already keen to get the next version, which actually just works. Progress is actually good, you know. The thing that makes it bad in games is that they remove things that made the old version good. With Windows, that's not the case. Windows 7 does everything XP does, only it's much faster and prettier.

Being edgy about Vista is fine, that was really a piece of shit, but Windows 7 fixed pretty much everything that was wrong with it. If you keep sticking with old tech just to be lolnonconformisthipster, you're just holding back progress and end up with for example games being designed to work on 6 year old laptop hardware, like the fagbox 360, and all the fagbox ports that we end up with as a result.

Marobug: I'm sure it's more than 99%. I've never found anything so far that works with XP but not 7. Unless you mean some old 16 bit installers, but those don't work on 64bit XP either, so it's more a question of 32 vs 64 bit than XP vs 7.
 

Marobug

Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
566
So, you do think sots's strategic layer is complex ? :lol:
I recommend you check out other4x games then. Even Civ5 is twice as complex as sots.
 

Dirk Diggler

Scholar
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,946
Truth by assertion wins it every single damned time.

You're also presenting a strawman.

Fag.
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
Dirk Diggler said:
Actually you know what, if you only think that strategy games are to be played alone. Don't bother with the series, suits me just fine.

How did you make the transition from single-player to PvP TBS games? Was it a particular game? I end up liking 4x games that are complex but gameplay-retarded toys like MoM because I never transitioned to multiplayer. The only PvP strategy stuff in TBS games I ever noticed seemed to completely deform the game into denuded mechanics that would make all the effort they put into the empire-building narrative useless fluff, like infinite-city-sprawl strategies in old Civ games.
 

Marobug

Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
566
Dirk Diggler said:
Truth by assertion wins it every single damned time.

You're also presenting a strawman.

Fag.

Funny way to turn around the discussion but no.
So, my dear sots fanboy, is sword of the stars a complex game by 4x/grand strategy game standards ?

ninja edit: inb4 ad hominem
 

The Dude

Liturgist
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
727
Location
An abandoned hurricane.
Marobug said:
So, you do think sots's strategic layer is complex ? :lol:
I recommend you check out other4x games then. Even Civ5 is twice as complex as sots.

Seen as a pure wargame, SotS strategic layer is a lot more complex than most 4x. As a diplomatic game, not so much, as a management game, even less so. To each his own.

As for you opinion when it comes to the complexity of SotS 2, I give your trolling efforts 4/10, since you actually managed to troll out a "fag".

Marobug said:
So...this is complexity for you ?

You seem to like asking questions, you like answering them too? What is complexity for you?
 

Marobug

Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
566
Jeez now that kerberos's forum is down they all decided to come in packs to the codex now ?

Anyways, complexity, depth whatever you want to call it. If you want a definition I can google it for you.

Sots is not a "pure wargame" so I fail to see how it can be more complex than most 4x. When you put all the aspects of a standard 4x game together (which ahem include diplomacy and empire management), calling sots a complex game is the equivalent of calling oblivion an intelligent rpg.
 

Dirk Diggler

Scholar
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,946
Zomg said:
Dirk Diggler said:
Actually you know what, if you only think that strategy games are to be played alone. Don't bother with the series, suits me just fine.

How did you make the transition from single-player to PvP TBS games? Was it a particular game?
Colonization, Civ 4, Dominions 3, Battle for Wesnoth, and SotS are the ones I play multiplayer the most. I think from about the time I was 16 or so, I've typically defaulted to the idea that 'multiplayer is better' regarding strategy games. Particularly because I felt that playing against a computer encouraged a poor understanding and application of the mechanics underlying the representation.

The only PvP strategy stuff in TBS games I ever noticed seemed to completely deform the game into denuded mechanics that would make all the effort they put into the empire-building narrative useless fluff, like infinite-city-sprawl strategies in old Civ games.
I think it was probably Magic the Gathering that really turned me on to the idea of beating people through rules gaming. I recall being really butthurt the first time that I witnessed how the stack worked in MtG. I tapped my Prodigal Sorcerer to kill another player's Prodigal Sorcerer. So, of course, he tapped in response and his hit first. It was really the dumbest thing that I could imagine, but after watching several high-skill level players manipulating these rules, I became pretty much a-okay with this approach to gaming.

And so it carried over to turn based tabletop wargames and computer strategy titles. I guess all things said, it really does require a sort of ignorance of what's being represented in favor of the numbers behind what's being represented to enjoy TBS games. I look at it from a purely competitive standpoint. It just feels good to beat people imo.

Though I gotta say, I just so happen to like the first SotS because I feel that the symbols representing the numbers make a lot of sense(BTW, Colonization is very good about this as well). You don't really win on the tactical level by doing cheesy shit so much as you win by knowing what weapons do what and how to use them properly.

That said, there is still some cheese behind economic management in SotS. However, since you are just balancing research spending vs savings, there's not a lot of cognitive dissonance like there can be in other strategy games.
MaroBug said:
So, my dear sots fanboy, is sword of the stars a complex game by 4x/grand strategy game standards ?
It depends on how we're quantifying 'complexity.' It doesn't feature the breadth that most 4x/grand strategy games do in that it doesn't have the sheer number of features. However, there is a great level of depth to the variety of ways you can manipulate the few features that exist.

Obviously SotS isn't as good as Go or Chess, but those aren't exactly 'complex' games when looking at the breadth of features either. Yet, people manage to develop ever increasingly complex strategies for playing the game in spite of the extremely simple mechanics.
 

Marobug

Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
566
Dirk Diggler said:
It depends on how we're quantifying 'complexity.' It doesn't feature the breadth that most 4x/grand strategy games do in that it doesn't have the sheer number of features. However, there is a great level of depth to the variety of ways you can manipulate the few features that exist.
The same also happens in most (decent) 4x games, except usually they have more features.

Dirk Diggler said:
Obviously SotS isn't as good as Go or Chess, but those aren't exactly 'complex' games when looking at the breadth of features either. Yet, people manage to develop ever increasingly complex strategies for playing the game in spite of the extremely simple mechanics.
Go and chess are in a completely different league from sots and even many other 4x games. These games are simple only in appearance and rules, they are actually very complex. Sots in the other hand looks completely bland at first, and even when you know more about it it never actually gets complex. It just doesn't allow for the same amount of strategies or offers as many challenges as most 4x games would, simply because diplomacy, empire management, intelligence and other important sectors in a 4x game are non-existent or close to in sots.
 

The Dude

Liturgist
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
727
Location
An abandoned hurricane.
Marobug said:
Anyways, complexity, depth whatever you want to call it. If you want a definition I can google it for you.

Sots is not a "pure wargame" so I fail to see how it can be more complex than most 4x. When you put all the aspects of a standard 4x game together (which ahem include diplomacy and empire management), calling sots a complex game is the equivalent of calling oblivion an intelligent rpg.

No, it's not a pure wargame. But the focus, from the beginning, was on the warmaking rather than the other parts. The design philosophy has always been stated to be that if something can't be shot up and destroyed in the tactical combat part, then it shouldn't be in the game, or abstracted to a large degree. If you can't agree that it does this part better than most other 4x (preferably with examples of 4x games doing it better), both on the tactical and strategic layer, I really have a hard time to see where you are coming from. This coupled with probably the best research implementation in any 4x, and the races playing so different is what makes it an excellent, and fairly complex, game.

Also, the diplomacy system isn't worse than most 4x games, maybe a little contrived since it uses icons that you script diplomatic messages from. You can do most of the things you'd expect, such as treaties, alliances, intelligence sharing, tributes, joint attacks and stuff like that. It does help to read the racial fluff though, if you want to "get" the personalities of the different races, sadly it's not in-game info, but in the documentation. You can even do some neat tricks like making a weaker opponent fold to you by just sharing your system info, since the AI isn't omniscient and if it has only scouted your frontier worlds, that's all it thinks you have.

Seriously, sometimes I get the impression you opened up the game, played around for an hour or two, and then discounted it because you can't build farms and crap on planets.

As for Oblivion, no, it's not an intelligent game. But as a counter example, let's take TOEE. It's total crap in many areas, but the combat is absolutely glorious, in fact so good that the combat alone makes the game worth playing. Does that make TOEE a banalshitboring RPG?
 

Dirk Diggler

Scholar
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,946
The Dude said:
Seriously, sometimes I get the impression you opened up the game, played around for an hour or two, and then discounted it because you can't build farms and crap on planets.
Word.
 

Shuma

Scholar
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
208
Uh, not to derail the fun-train here, but the statement about Magic mechanics is totally wrong. Either the people you were playing against misunderstood how the stack actually works, or they conned you into believing something to gain a tiny temporary advantage.

Once you pay a cost in Magic, that effect happens even if the source of the effect is removed (not true for the target of the effect. In that case, it "fizzles"). So big deal, his effect happens first and he kills your Tim. Your ability STILL FIRES and you kill his (or whatever else you were shooting at, as long as it wasn't the Tim itself, then it would fizzle.

I know I'm totally missing the point of what you were saying, but uhh, well let's just say I know the rules of Magic pretty well.
 

Marobug

Newbie
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
566
The Dude said:
Marobug said:
Anyways, complexity, depth whatever you want to call it. If you want a definition I can google it for you.

Sots is not a "pure wargame" so I fail to see how it can be more complex than most 4x. When you put all the aspects of a standard 4x game together (which ahem include diplomacy and empire management), calling sots a complex game is the equivalent of calling oblivion an intelligent rpg.

No, it's not a pure wargame. But the focus, from the beginning, was on the warmaking rather than the other parts. The design philosophy has always been stated to be that if something can't be shot up and destroyed in the tactical combat part, then it shouldn't be in the game, or abstracted to a large degree. If you can't agree that it does this part better than most other 4x (preferably with examples of 4x games doing it better), both on the tactical and strategic layer, I really have a hard time to see where you are coming from. This coupled with probably the best research implementation in any 4x, and the races playing so different is what makes it an excellent, and fairly complex, game.

Wat. Since the beginning I've been criticizing sots as a 4x game, not as a wargame. When it comes to war/combat it might be more complex than most but it's lacking in everything else, or at least almost everything else. All components put together no one can say it's a complex game by 4x standards.
And how is sots's research implementation better than any 4x game ? Races playing different is a common feature in most 4x games. In some you can even create your own up. Even if sots did these things better than any other, it wouldn't automatically make it a complex game.

As for the diplomacy, I recommend you trying an actual 4x game and compare. Space empires, Galciv, civ, armada, hell even distant worlds. These were the first 4x games that came to mind and they all have a better (or more complex if you will) diplomacy component.
The Dude said:
Seriously, sometimes I get the impression you opened up the game, played around for an hour or two, and then discounted it because you can't build farms and crap on planets.
Shit my cover was blown. No seriously I don't think I spoke on planet management yet but it's also good to be reminded how bland it is as well.
 

Raapys

Arcane
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,960
What exactly is so good about the war-stuff in it anyway? I'm pretty sure both MoO and SpaceEmpires have more tactical weapons, systems and defenses. Is it the artificial ship limit in combat and fixed ship roles that people get all excited over?

Don't get me wrong, I thought the combat was fine. But it's not as if it really did anything particularly great.
 

Dirk Diggler

Scholar
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,946
Shuma said:
Uh, not to derail the fun-train here, but the statement about Magic mechanics is totally wrong. Either the people you were playing against misunderstood how the stack actually works, or they conned you into believing something to gain a tiny temporary advantage.

Once you pay a cost in Magic, that effect happens even if the source of the effect is removed (not true for the target of the effect. In that case, it "fizzles"). So big deal, his effect happens first and he kills your Tim. Your ability STILL FIRES and you kill his (or whatever else you were shooting at, as long as it wasn't the Tim itself, then it would fizzle.

I know I'm totally missing the point of what you were saying, but uhh, well let's just say I know the rules of Magic pretty well.
I simply recalled 'first in-last out' wrong, we're referring to something that happened 12 years ago. You're right, both of our tim's died. I had just forgotten that the damage 'floats around' on the stack' in the moment I was telling that story. I still thought it was stupid that even though I acted first my card got removed at the same time. Then again, I was 13 or some shit.

There isn't even a stack anymore is there?
Raapys said:
What exactly is so good about the war-stuff in it anyway? I'm pretty sure both MoO and SpaceEmpires have more tactical weapons, systems and defenses. Is it the artificial ship limit in combat and fixed ship roles that people get all excited over?

Don't get me wrong, I thought the combat was fine. But it's not as if it really did anything particularly great.
I would say that for me, it's the vast number of ways that you can manage your battleplan. It's kind of hard to explain in concrete terms w/o getting long-winded, but what the fuck I'll get long-winded.

For instance, a common strategy in the early game is to put a weapon called an 'emitter' on a destroyer class ship. Emitters do a pretty good amount of damage vs hulls, never miss, and have an extremely short range. Their fire rate is not impressive but not slow as Christmas either. What's cool about that is that not only do they work well for their intended function of close-range brawling, but they actually make a decent auxillary point defense due to the fact that they never miss, and if you have a full array of emitters on a DE, there will only be a very small span where it's not able to fire on incoming weapons. So, the emitter is an extremely good early game weapon in spite of it's humble stats on paper.

Beyond the fact that there is a nice 'backdoor use' for almost every weapon in the game like that, you have the way that different weapon systems interact with each other. The complex ordnance launchers in particular allow you to really direct the way that the battle turns out, and really force your opponent to come up with good ideas to get things on their terms.

One of my very favorite strategies is to run two point defense hard-points on every droneship destroyer, then give them a UV beamer as a main weapon . Then two COLs(which also double as point defense cruisers), two heavy laser cruisers running no point defense at all, and a flagship(usually a shielded missile cruiser outfitted with corrosive missiles(if I had the RNG that let me research them at least) on the big hardpoints). Now, from the very get-go, this gives me a lot of drones that are immediately harassing the enemy and pushing them toward me. At the same time I'm going to be deploying mines remotely with the COLs, but the key is that I'll deploy them close enough that I can shoot past them with heavy combat lasers, which have a narrow line of fire, long range, extremely slow firing rate, and pretty much unbeatable damage. Using a strategy like this obviously helps you mitigate those disadvantages by forcing the enemy player to take big damage through the minefield or work their way around and get hit by the HCL several times, which is usually even worse.

Essnetially, what I am getting at by that example, is that there is a pretty sophisticated game of measures and countermeasures that come up. You also aren't looking at the individual stats of any particular weapon so much as you are looking at how those weapons will serve in a fleet. I think this gives the game an almost endless level of playability if you have a few friends who have the time to sit around and play it with you. Things are always a little different every game, and everybody tries to stay one step ahead of what they think you are going to do as a result of what happened last time.
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
Doesn't it really suck waiting for other people to finish tactical battles with the AI or each other? I guess if you have a TV show or something you can watch in between, but long waits break the flow of gaming I find.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom