Sword of the Stars II (Or another 4X space game I will probably buy)

TurinTur · 2012-02-15T09:44:48.000Z

MikeJ:

This. SotS2 ‘as designed’ has all the features of SotS1 at release, plus 2.5 expansions, plus about 2 expansions worth of additional gee-whiz stuff, plus the new engine and graphics and all that.

One of the devs posted how they have fewer people in their whole company than worked on creating unit sound effects for Starcraft2. Well, when you have that small a team, some discipline in regards to features is in order.

One has to wonder why if they are so small, they chose to do something so big as a game like this: A double strategy game (part strategic map, part tactical battles, each one with their own UI, AI systems, balance issues, etc) with multiple diffrent races, 3d engine, etc etc
At some point they have to face reality, and notice they can’t do the game they want to make, they are not enough big for that.

MikeJ · 2012-02-15T10:26:24.000Z

KevinC:

What is the battle manager? Is that separate from the fleet manager?

You use the battle manager during the strategic turn to choose where you want your ships to be at the start of tactical combat. If you are defending, you can use this to place defense platforms, defending fleets and (someday) stealthed battlerider bases and minefields. You can only place stuff in sectors of the map that you control, and the attacker is auto-placed on the first round of combat, but can choose any controlled sector in the subsequent rounds.

MikeJ · 2012-02-15T10:30:38.000Z

TurinTur:

One has to wonder why if they are so small, they chose to do something so big as a game like this: A double strategy game (part strategic map, part tactical battles, each one with their own UI, AI systems, balance issues, etc) with multiple diffrent races, 3d engine, etc etc.

Well, they managed to get it done with an even smaller team for SotS1, but they also had only 4 races instead of 6, many fewer ship sections per race, fewer weapons, no trade and they didn’t have to worry about all the stuff that was added to the design even beyond the SotS1+expansions content.

MrCoffee · 2012-02-15T10:39:37.000Z

Well as far as i remember they didnt manage it, since the original SOTS was also very buggy at release.

I only just recently played it with all the expansions and latest patches and its a great game.

Rorschach · 2012-02-15T12:07:01.000Z

MikeJ:

You use the battle manager during the strategic turn to choose where you want your ships to be at the start of tactical combat. If you are defending, you can use this to place defense platforms, defending fleets and (someday) stealthed battlerider bases and minefields. You can only place stuff in sectors of the map that you control, and the attacker is auto-placed on the first round of combat, but can choose any controlled sector in the subsequent rounds.

It’s the realization of the WWII model of battles. Fleet positioning, capturing sectors, scouting, flanking, feints. It all will come from the battle manager which is why I’m excited to see it implemented.

KevinC · 2012-02-15T12:18:46.000Z

There are very valid criticisms of feature creep, but I will say that I would rather see an (overly) ambitious game fall flat on its face than yet another Call of Duty or WoW clone. I’ll give them credit for trying to do more than a SOTS retread with prettier graphics, despite the failure.

Besides, they’re still working on it, we may yet see that game.

MikeJ · 2012-02-15T13:05:15.000Z

KevinC:

There are very valid criticisms of feature creep, but I will say that I would rather see an (overly) ambitious game fall flat on its face than yet another Call of Duty or WoW clone. I’ll give them credit for trying to do more than a SOTS retread with prettier graphics, despite the failure.

SotS’s genre (if there is such a thing) is pretty sparsely populated. So even a SotS1 retread with prettier graphics would still be a fairly unique game. That said, they could afford to cut quite a bit off the design and still have it be a fairly ambitious step over the previous title.

Things I would save for the first expansion: psionics and everything related, including the Suul’ka. Admirals with lifespans, loyalty, stats, home systems. Minor races. The imperial government stuff. System defense boats. Elaborate diplomacy system. Elaborate espionage system.

That would still leave SotS1 + expansions + better graphics + new techs + Leviathans + carriers and battleriders + multiplanet systems + larger tactical map + new armour system + new critical hit system + fleet system + more developed stations and logistics. I think that would be plenty ambitious for version 1.0 of a new game.

Besides, they’re still working on it, we may yet see that game.

I definitely hope we get there, but feature creep has endangered the studio.

KevinC · 2012-02-15T13:10:31.000Z

No argument from me, Mike. I do know they have the two planned expansions mapped out, so I wonder what they are/were planning given the base product is laden with so many features, as you pointed out.

Rorschach · 2012-02-15T13:24:29.000Z

Martin just posted on the official forums that the next feature update is delayed to Monday to fix bugs and finalize the random encounter systems and the system defense boats / battle manager systems.

Dawn_Falcon · 2012-02-15T13:44:47.000Z

MikeJ:

That would still leave SotS1 + expansions + better graphics + new techs + Leviathans + carriers and battleriders + multiplanet systems + larger tactical map + new armour system + new critical hit system + fleet system + more developed stations and logistics. I think that would be plenty ambitious for version 1.0 of a new game.

Well, I’d want the system defence boats, but bluntly I’d be happy with an economics and stations system far closer to SotS1. As to the armour system, it was a train wreck when it done in Renegade Legion / Interceptor and is no better today…

(Leviathan is a better model, but then again given it’s still partly used today in BattleTech…)

KevinC · 2012-02-15T17:06:38.000Z

What’s wrong with the armor system?

Dawn_Falcon · 2012-02-15T17:09:50.000Z

It adds a massive degree of luck into combat, limits the viable weapon combinations (on top of all other limits) to a few and is very hard to keep track of beyond a few units.

KevinC · 2012-02-15T18:17:56.000Z

Are you saying this from personal experience with the SOTS2 system or theorycraft? I’m not using the term in a dismissive way, I’m just curious about the source of the statement. It’s not something I’ve seen any complaints about, although the game’s not exactly being played by legions at the moment.

Stepsongrapes · 2012-02-15T19:01:34.000Z

Dawn Falcon:

It adds a massive degree of luck into combat, limits the viable weapon combinations (on top of all other limits) to a few and is very hard to keep track of beyond a few units.

At least with respect to luck, is that not an accurate component of combat? From my admittedly limited knowledge of naval warfare, luck is/was a huge factor.

SOTS has always been about making combat more than abstracted statistics (e.g., GalCiv). Movement, facing, and angles play roles. The armor model seems to follow along the same lines (assuming it is implemented correctly).

Dawn_Falcon · 2012-02-15T19:30:09.000Z

KevinC - They really have ripped the mechanic straight from the old hex-based wargames games, Renegade Legion and Interceptor.

Stepsongrapes - Two laser hits and one from an armour cross-cutting weapon down one of those holes, and half your armour floats off. Blah.

Luck is fine to a degree, but there already a massive number of factors one could take into account. It’s a model which already frustrating in pen and paper games, when you didn’t have to take account of this stuff in real time. Even with less ships, I can’t see it as anything but overcomplexity. Chance for critical hits which damage systems? Yes, certainly. Some weapons more likely to do them? Absolutely! But…

KevinC · 2012-02-15T20:00:31.000Z

Hmmm, not sure if I really agree that it adds all that much complexity. Weapon systems in SOTS1 already interacted with armor in different ways, with deflect chances being calculated based on the angle that they hit a particular piece of armor. This just seems like a logical extension of that.

I haven’t really played the game, though, so that’s just my “on paper” thoughts. I’ll see for myself if/when the game becomes playable.

MikeJ · 2012-02-15T20:17:44.000Z

Dawn Falcon:

Two laser hits and one from an armour cross-cutting weapon down one of those holes, and half your armour floats off. Blah.

The armor doesn’t separate like that in SotS2. I looks like the weapon draws a trace down one column and if it hits an intact armor cell, it takes out a fixed pattern of armor. So far the biggest influence is to really take a look at which weapons can produce deep damage patterns, since the shallow damage patterns have no chance against dreadnaught or leviathan damage resistance.

Stepsongrapes · 2012-02-15T20:21:52.000Z

Dawn Falcon:

Stepsongrapes - Two laser hits and one from an armour cross-cutting weapon down one of those holes, and half your armour floats off. Blah.

Uh, yeah. That was the whole point of the Renegade system. A lot of Renegade was about praying for the lucky hit, protecting your weak side, making a high risk movement maneuver. In terms of game impact, the armor system promoted mixed weaponry.

Again, I it sounds like you prefer a “smoother” combat model like in GalCiv with less surprises. Not an unreasonable position, but one that SOTS (as a series) seems to have eschewed.

On complexity and “taking it into account” are you saying that you are literally trying to factor the armor model in to your play during combat? I don’t see the design in SOTS as being geared towards that. It should affect your build decisions, but I don’t think you are expected to (or frankly can) take it into account during a battle much beyond perhaps selecting your target (per the issue KevinC mentioned above).

Dawn_Falcon · 2012-02-15T20:40:19.000Z

MikeJ:

The armor doesn’t separate like that in SotS2.

Ah, okay, I was given bad information then :)

Stepsongrapes - You’re comparing a system with a chance of damage and 3 ship sections with one far more luck-based, where repeated hits in the same “area” can cause system damage far more rapidly than otherwise.

You cannot afford NOT to take into account the way armour works, in ship design and in combat. There was, again, a reason you had a quite narrow range of viable designs in Interceptor in particular (and some spectacularly CRAP base ship designs to work with!). Sure, you can ignore it, but someone with a higher APM who does take it into account is going to be far, far more successful.

There’s a reason Leviathan went on to influence BattleTech very heavily, and Renegade Legion / Interceptor did not. I also hate SFB and play (and develop for) Starfire, if that means anything to you.)

Stepsongrapes · 2012-02-15T20:56:02.000Z

Dawn Falcon:

You cannot afford NOT to take into account the way armour works, in ship design and in combat.

Can you give an example of how you are taking it into account during SOTS2 combat?