Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » FreeStars » Thoughts on a next gen Stars
Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Tue, 01 February 2011 20:14 |
|
Steve | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 217
Registered: November 2002 Location: 40 deg N, 90 deg W | |
|
I've been think for a while of a strategic space game.
My first thought is that the universe is a 3 (at least) dimension entity. The 2 dimensions in the Stars game does not quite cut it IMHO. Of course the UI for a 3D universe is a challenge.
Doing some in depth research (OK, I looked at Wikipedia) there are 69 stars within 1 parsec (16.3 LY) OF Sol. Seems like the perfect environment of your tri-immune HE!
I expect the number of stars with habitable planets are probably well under a Stars OWW race!
In a Stars game, the human race will have a growth rate under the 19% rate typical in the game. In fact, a growth rate of 5%-6% is probably more realistic.
Earth population is shy of 7 billion right now. The idea of sending more at a couple million people per year to colonize other worlds seems like a stretch. Even on a 100% workd, the time to get from a couple million to a couple billion in population takes a LONG time!
So starting from a single home world and colonizing enough of the universe to run into a hostile race and fight is beyond the patience of most players IMHO.
So perhaps having starting empires makes some sense, or perhaps having a multi-year generation plan.
I have some questions about being able to detect and intercept a hostile force some light years away. Perhaps the process of FTL travel will be detectable.
I am thinking of Python for development. Probably keep the universe in an SQL database on the host system.
Thoughts or ideas?
No trees were harmed in the making of this sig. However, many electrons were terribly inconveniencedReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Tue, 01 February 2011 20:58 |
|
|
Sword of the Stars pulls off a 3d map pretty well.
It sounds like your idea would make for a rather slow game, I must say. Stars! has a decent level of abstraction and (after the first 20-30 turns or so) pacing.
[Updated on: Tue, 01 February 2011 20:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Wed, 02 February 2011 06:38 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Some food for thought!
Steve wrote on Wed, 02 February 2011 02:14 | I've been think for a while of a strategic space game.
|
Me too. I want HomeWorld tactical gameplay with Stars! true strategy.
But all that should wait until we have a reasonably working clone of current Stars!
Quote: | In a Stars game, the human race will have a growth rate under the 19% rate typical in the game. In fact, a growth rate of 5%-6% is probably more realistic.
|
Realistic clashes with fast-paced, IMO. After all, the most realistic possible space adventure is RL, with about 1 year of time spent per "game year". Time needed for a realistic conquest of the Milky Way galaxy would likely be way more than most players can devote.
Makes one think seriously about becoming immortal, doesn't it?
Quote: | So perhaps having starting empires makes some sense, or perhaps having a multi-year generation plan.
|
That would be very useful. Some foundations already exist.
Quote: | I have some questions about being able to detect and intercept a hostile force some light years away. Perhaps the process of FTL travel will be detectable.
|
Odds are that's the most realistic thing, actually, as we are already detecting all kinds of radiation much farther away than that.
Detecting them before they come knocking is another matter, of course...
Quote: | I am thinking of Python for development. Probably keep the universe in an SQL database on the host system.
|
LUA and Java are popular too. The database is probably the only way to go, be it SQL (relational) or not.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Wed, 02 February 2011 08:21 |
|
Steve | | Officer Cadet 1st Year | Messages: 217
Registered: November 2002 Location: 40 deg N, 90 deg W | |
|
Coyote wrote on Tue, 01 February 2011 19:58 |
It sounds like your idea would make for a rather slow game, I must say. Stars! has a decent level of abstraction and (after the first 20-30 turns or so) pacing.
|
If we scale the resources to 1 per 1,000,000 of colonists and a Santa Maria carries 2,500,000 colonists then a starting HW with 7 billion colonists will have 7,000 resources from colonists alone. Add factories for a developed HW and a lot of production is available.
No trees were harmed in the making of this sig. However, many electrons were terribly inconveniencedReport message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Wed, 02 February 2011 14:36 |
|
|
[email | m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Wed, 02 February 2011 03:38]I want HomeWorld tactical gameplay with Stars! true strategy.
|
Again, SotS pulls this off pretty well imo, though it could be improved (a better UI, more refined auto-behavior) - wait and see what the devs pull out for SotS II though, as supposedly it'll be more advanced. From wherever that puts things in design terms would be a good starting point.
I'm not advertising, I swear! I just think it's a game that's done a lot of things very well, and like Stars!, remains fun to play. Unlike Stars! though, it's constantly being upgraded and refined.
[Updated on: Wed, 02 February 2011 14:38] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Wed, 02 February 2011 15:23 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Coyote wrote on Wed, 02 February 2011 13:36 | Again, SotS pulls this off pretty well imo, though it could be improved (a better UI, more refined auto-behavior) - wait and see what the devs pull out for SotS II though, as supposedly it'll be more advanced.
|
While it is a nice game, and I enjoyed playing it quite a bit, I would not term it better than stars! I picked sots last year, and played for many hours, pushing all other games aside. Then, I just stopped playing. A few things irked me, that go beyond a nice UI and 3D (which is more pain than it is worth IMO).
Anyway, in summary, I don't play sots anymore, but I am still playing stars after 15 years.
Quote: | Unlike Stars! though, it's constantly being upgraded and refined.
|
I hope they fix all the things I don't like! That would be nice.
I have no expectation for the next gen version. Usually the second gen versions just dumb down the game mechanics for the masses.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Wed, 02 February 2011 15:43 |
|
|
A few random thoughts on the above.
1) 1 turn per 'year' is an abstraction. 19% PGR doesn't seem so weird if you consider that one 'game year' might be equivalent to say, six 'earth years' (the highest national growth rate in the world at the moment is somewhere around 3%, over 6 years that'd be over 19%)
2) Star density. Again, an abstraction. Maybe not all stars are suitable for colonisation by ANYONE. Regardless, just select our arbitary unit of distance to give whatever density is good for gameplay. Bonus points if you reduce the distances low enough that ships don't need to move FTL (and don't forget you get to choose how long each turn is,) thus reducing any pesky issues with scanning.
(1+2) My point, is that the decisions on things like growth rate, planet density, can be made from a gameplay perspective. You can make them 'realistic' afterwards, by choosing the distance/time scales of your game appropriately.
3) 3D. EEEEEEEEEW. Our 2D displays make it too hard to visualise, if there is more than a handful of stars. Even worse, going 3D makes choke points almost vanish from the map, reducing strategic depth. The more '3D' you are, the less interesting the terrain is. If you go 3D, you're almost forced into putting 'space lanes' into your game, routes that ships have to move along (or travel much slower,) just to stamp some terrain onto the map. You don't need this kludge so badly if you stick with 2D.
SOTS did 3D with space lanes. It was ok, until you tried to play sphere galaxies with 100+ stars. Then it got ridiculously messy.
MOO3 also did 3D with space lanes, but was *much* flatter. In practice, I found this played out much like it was 2D but with some routes between stars being 'slower' than others (because there was more of an elevation change.) It didn't add much to the strategy.
SINS did 3D, but with very low planet counts (played on the scale of solar systems.) This was OK, but really it was rare for it to matter.
[Updated on: Wed, 02 February 2011 15:50] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Wed, 02 February 2011 19:55 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Dogthinkers wrote on Wed, 02 February 2011 21:43 | going 3D makes choke points almost vanish from the map, reducing strategic depth. The more '3D' you are, the less interesting the terrain is. If you go 3D, you're almost forced into putting 'space lanes' into your game, routes that ships have to move along (or travel much slower,) just to stamp some terrain onto the map. You don't need this kludge so badly if you stick with 2D.
|
Bummer. And "lanes" are even worse, IMHO.
Have you tried lots of maps? Would clustering help?
What about desirable "hot spots" instead of "choke points"? Perhaps that would add some "geography" to the bare starmap.
At any rate, I'd rather have "nebulas" instead of "lanes". Vast gas/dust/radiation-filled expanses can serve as "barrier" to travel/gating/packeting, natural cloaking, or even "natural lanes" if ramscoops perform too poorly outside them. Twisty, slowly-evolving lanes might be interesting...
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Wed, 02 February 2011 20:30 |
|
|
Nebulas would be a fun way to do it, but then you hit a big UI issue - putting patches of fog all over your 3D map and expecting the player to be able to figure out which routes the fog is effecting.
Fully 3D for space strategy games sounds really cool until you actually try to do it in a environment with lots of objects. Maybe it can be done, but so far every time I've come across it I've found myself wanting to flatten out the map to make it more fun and less work.
For tactical play with a few dozen units sure. For strategy with a few hundred stars, eek!
[Updated on: Wed, 02 February 2011 20:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | |
Re: Thoughts on a next gen Stars |
Sun, 13 February 2011 21:01 |
|
|
Well, I don't think an actively controlled combat engine would be a good idea - it works for games where turns are short and played back to back, but not so well on a turn-a-day game like Stars!... Some hybridization between the two concepts would be nice; pre-planned battle orders, but smooth flowing physics and all, like SSNG was supposedly going to have.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 05 23:10:04 EDT 2024
|