SE IV The End Of An Era. [Archive]

Atrocities

February 27th, 2004, 05:59 PM

With this "Last" patch for SEIV I fear it marks the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.

We have nothing else to look forward to from Malfador in way of support for Space Empires IV and the long journey toward the release of Space Empires V has begun.

I have been playing Space Empires IV since its demo release back in August 2000 and it is argueably the most played game on my PC and in the history of my PC gaming life.

I love this game for many reasons, most are well known and equal to many of yours. The game has taken on a life of its own, a self feeding monster that is a highly addictive, life sucking, time stealing black hole of biblical proportions.

A warning label should come with this game, and indeed with Space Empires V that warns buyers of its addicitive life alterning properties.

I can't help but feel a little sad in knowning that we have crossed the top of the mountain and are now on our way down the back slop. It has been a great journey and one that I am forever thankful for haven taken.

I own Aaron and Shrapnel a big thank you for SEIV and the support for this communitee. Without Aaron we would not have this great game. (And the beta testers too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Without Shrapnels support we would not have these forums, and the community that now calls this place its home page.

There is still time for those of you who have not yet purchased SEIV Gold. The time is right for you now, buy this game and enjoy all that it has to offer. Don't let this jem slip through your fingers. You have no idea what you are missing.

The rest of us know what we will be missing as the game slowly runs it course and its little brother comes alive.

This game is a dream come to life, and I sincerely doubt that it will ever be equaled, except by SE V or later.

[ February 27, 2004, 17:21: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

bearclaw

February 27th, 2004, 06:27 PM

I can second that. I remember finding a CD-ROM many years ago that had a demo for a game called Space Empires II. Since then, the only other games I've really ever played has been SEIII, SEIV, and Star Fury.

I remember similar sentiments when SEIII was nearing the end of it's run. Then, with SEIV came PBW and all was forgiven.

Thanks Aaron. Love the game more than you know.

PvK

February 27th, 2004, 06:47 PM

I second (third...) the SE4 being a neat game part.

I do rather dislike the sentiment "the end of a game etc." Games don't really end or die. Pong still exists. People still play pre-Gold, SE3, Nethack, Atari 2600 games, and so on. I know that's not what you meant, but I dislike the language and sentiment of "game X is dead (or has ended) because there it's not the latest thing, patches probably won't be released for it, or there aren't as many players for it as there used to be." At least the remaining players will be interested in the merits rather than in the "latest thing" hype, and will tend not to be thoughts about when "the end" of the game will be.

Also, looking at Star Fury, I'm not so sure I'll be thrilled with SE5.

PvK

[ February 27, 2004, 16:49: Message edited by: PvK ]

Atrocities

February 27th, 2004, 07:06 PM

PVK the game is far from dead. In fact I do not believe that was at all what I was emplying. However, if that is how you read it, then I do apologize for it.

What I thought I was saying was that every game has a peek point that when it has been crossed the game slowly begins to loose momentum. Fewer and fewer people play it with few mods, ship sets, and other being released for it.

The game has crossed that peek now with this final patch. Malfador is not going to release another patch for the game and will now focus upon developing SE V. That to me is a sign that the game has peeked.

As long as people play SE IV, the game will live on. Hell people still play Tribes, in fact the disk for that game cost more than they did new, and you have to ask yourself why? The answer is simple, like seiv, the game peeked then went down the hill into the shadow of its sequal Tribes 2.

The game was, is, one of the greates games ever made IMHO, (Tribes 1 that is) and its sequal Tribes 2 is equally ledgendary.

Space Empires III and IV are both great games with SEIV's peek being far higher than III's. Space Empire V's peek will be even higher.

I think of it as a road over the moutain to a much larger moutain. The moutains will always be there, but once you have crossed them, all you have to look forward to are more moutains or another trip over the same moutains.

AMF

February 27th, 2004, 07:14 PM

My only real concern (and I think it's what you're alluding to here also) is that the addition of a radically different/advanced graphics engine to the tactical combat of SEV will "break" it. But I'm one of those people who would like to get MOO2 style graphics for tac combat, and stop there. I am just afraid that a totally different, 3d, etc... tac combat engine will be practically unmoddable, full of video bugs, slow the game down, etc...

On the other hand, IF it could be pulled off without all that, then, frankly, that would be amazing.

I guess I just prefer solid functionality/gameplay first, then flash second. No reason SEV can't have both...I hope.

thanks,

Alarik

Originally posted by PvK:
<snipped>
Also, looking at Star Fury, I'm not so sure I'll be thrilled with SE5.

PvK

Atrocities

February 27th, 2004, 07:20 PM

I changed the name of the thread from Beginning of the end to End of an era.

I think it better fits but says the same thing.

AMF

February 27th, 2004, 07:35 PM

How exactly do you do that? I've wanted to change the titles of threads I have started in the past, but could not figure out how.

thanks,

Alarik

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I changed the name of the thread from Beginning of the end to End of an era.

I think it better fits but says the same thing.

David E. Gervais

February 27th, 2004, 07:38 PM

I wouldn't be worried if I were you. Space Empires has a very solid foundation. (Like Chess) And even though the game will have some 3D elements, it's not going to kill the gameplay.

Using Chess as an example, playing a 2D computer Version is fun, Playing a 3D computer Version is equally as fun, but can be more pleasing and have a more natural feel. I think the same will be true of SE:V

Remember, Aaron got lots of feedback and suggestions for the Last SE:IV patch, and a ton of new suggestions for SE:V. We all know that he aims to please, so you can expect many of your suggestions to make their way into SE:V.

SE:IV was and Is still a great game. What makes the game great is you, the fan base. The Passion you all bring to the game is what keeps it alive. I believe that SE:V will simply give you more fuel to feed your passion and keep Space Empires alive and well for many many years to come.

I for one am glad to be a part of this community. This is a great place to be, good people, good game, good fun to be had by all.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Atrocities

February 27th, 2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by alarikf:
How exactly do you do that? I've wanted to change the titles of threads I have started in the past, but could not figure out how.

thanks,

Alarik

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Atrocities:
I changed the name of the thread from Beginning of the end to End of an era.

I think it better fits but says the same thing. <hr /></blockquote>You edit the original first message and from there you can also change the name of the thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Atrocities

February 27th, 2004, 07:58 PM

David, well said. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You inspire me you know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

gregebowman

February 27th, 2004, 08:02 PM

I don't have your history with this game, Atrocities, but I share your thoughts on this game. It's a fluke that I had even heard of it, but I'm glad I decided to buy it after I checked out the demo. But I don't things are going to be as bleak as you're making them out to be. We got maybe up to 2 years before SEV comes out, and that's 2 years of more mods and race sets to look forward to. Sure, the beta testers may know what the new game will include, but for us average joes, we'll be playing along with whatever comes out until then. It's the fans, after all, who make the game what it is now.

PvK

February 27th, 2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
PVK the game is far from dead. In fact I do not believe that was at all what I was emplying. However, if that is how you read it, then I do apologize for it.
... I probably came across as overly severe. I see what you mean, I think, although I just prefer not to think of or express "Last patch" or "popularity" in terms of a game itself being dead, over, ended, or falling. Mainly a perspective thing.

PvK

Atrocities

February 27th, 2004, 08:32 PM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The game will live on until the end of time itself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And I am damn proud to have been a small part of it.

Atrocities

February 27th, 2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by gregebowman:
I don't things are going to be as bleak as you're making them out to be. Huh? Things are not going to be bleak, or at least I can not imagine them becoming bleak. What will happen has happened to many games before. As the new game gets closer to release, fewer and fewer people will be releasing mods, ship sets, and other things for the current game.

People live for whats just over the horizon and I for one feel that the road that leads there is the same road that leads to the next horizon and the next new thing.

No no, SE IV has a bright and enjoyable future yet. The game is still young and still very popular.

The sad thing is, and I do mean this, is that people have not yet discovered it. That is the true gloomy thing if you think about it. Here we are, enjoying this game while others out there are still playing Stars without any knowledge that SEIV is out there.

Or worse, they are playing MOO3 thinking that there is no alternative to it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Now that is indeed sad.

[ February 27, 2004, 18:39: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Fyron

February 27th, 2004, 09:20 PM

Let's just hope that SE5 does not drive away half of the Online SE4 community like SE4 drove away half of the Online SE3 community... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Renegade 13

February 28th, 2004, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Let's just hope that SE5 does not drive away half of the Online SE4 community like SE4 drove away half of the Online SE3 community... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif Why did SE4 drive away the SE3 community?

Captain Kwok

February 28th, 2004, 01:51 AM

Some of the SE3 veterans did not care for SE4 due to changes in the way construction worked, or combat, etc. And then I think there was all sorts of disputes between SE4 fans and SE3 fans and so on...but I wasn't really involved too much during those days so I can't speak much about it.

I think SE5 is going to go much better since there will be a lot more fan input in the game compared to the SE3-SE4 transitition.

bearclaw

February 28th, 2004, 02:11 AM

My only gripe in the change from SE3 to SE4 was research. I still prefer SE3-style research. Though SE4-style kind of grew on me.

Puke

February 28th, 2004, 02:23 AM

Old games dont die, they just fade away.

Heres to the community that made the game worth coming back to for four years, and that will keep me coming back until SE5.

Cheers.

Atrocities

February 28th, 2004, 02:39 AM

DarkAngel

February 28th, 2004, 02:45 AM

I think Aaron and malfador realize that one of,if not the biggest draw to SEIV is it's modability.Therefore i really don't think they'd do too much to detract from that.even if they go heavy 3D I believe the game can still be very modable.Look at games like Civ3,a great deal of it's mods have to be done with 3D rendered units and such,yet it has a very large fan base contributing mods all the time.I believe just as with the conVersion from SEIII to SEIV they'll keep true to many of the elements while improving on others.They won't please everybody,but the vast majority will still love it and continue to play with the enthusiasm that has been a staple of the game and these forums.

Atrocities

February 28th, 2004, 07:40 AM

I have not played Civ III in sometime. Has it improved at all? What mods would you recommend?

klausD

February 29th, 2004, 12:12 PM

I dont think that a lot of SE3 players has abandoned the series after SE4 release. The most players had complaints about some good SE3 game mechanics which changed in SE4, but nonetheless played it like hell. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
In SE4 I missed always the excellent construction system of SE3. I also dont like that fighters in SE4 are hardcoded to be able travelling in-system. (this should be rather an option for special long range fighters, while the standard fighter should be carrier or planet based) But these are just minor gripes.

I dont think that the differences from SE3 to SE4 are fundamental. But I am not so sure that there is no fundamental difference between SE4 and SE5. I cannot believe that it is easy for a normal user to construct 3D shipsets. Also I am VERY sceptical about the real time tactical combat engine. This is a big change to the classical SE approach to this matter. Many traditional turn based gamers will leave the fanbase because of this. (maybe me included) And because of a lot of newcomers which are attracted by realtime games the whole structure of the SE-fanbase will change.

For us all I hope that MM has learned something about the MOO3 desaster.

KlausD

Ruatha

February 29th, 2004, 12:17 PM

It will still be turn based.
Have you seen the "Combat mission" game series.

Wardad

February 29th, 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
... I own Aaron and Shrapnel ...
A Fraudian Slip? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I just couldn't ;et it slide... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

DarkAngel

March 1st, 2004, 01:39 AM

I have not played Civ III in sometime. Has it improved at all? What mods would you recommend? I think it has.As for good mods it's kinda like SEIV in respect to there's a ton of mods out there for it. Personally i just use my own material usually. Here is a link to just about anything you could ever want/need http://forums.civfanatics.com/index.php?s= . One thing i would recommend is Snoopy's terrain graphics,they make the game look a lot more realistic. Also if you haven't already gotten it the Conquests expansion is pretty cool.

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by klausD:
I dont think that a lot of SE3 players has abandoned the series after SE4 release. The most players had complaints about some good SE3 game mechanics which changed in SE4, but nonetheless played it like hell. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You obviously did not know the people I knew then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I cannot believe that it is easy for a normal user to construct 3D shipsets. Actually... SE4 requires creating 3D shipsets now, otherwie they look like crap in-game. SE5 will simply require either using a different 3D graphics tool, or a converter.

Also I am VERY sceptical about the real time tactical combat engine. This is a big change to the classical SE approach to this matter.Yes, but a good change.

Many traditional turn based gamers will leave the fanbase because of this. (maybe me included) If they leave simply because it is announced to be real time, then they are not true strategy fans. They (and you) will have to try it out, and I have every confidence that it will be nothing like what you are expecting (especially after previous conversations with you on this subject). Real time can very easily play just like SE4 combat does now, with very simple pausing features, and the ability to issue orders while paused. Well, it will not be exactly the same, as it will eliminate all of the idiosyncrocies inherent in EVERY turn based combat system imagineable. It will be better.

And because of a lot of newcomers which are attracted by realtime games the whole structure of the SE-fanbase will change.Only if it is made to be Starcraft-like real time. Otherwise, no.

For us all I hope that MM has learned something about the MOO3 desaster.Of course. Do not presume that MM will pull off another MOO3. MOO3 combat was not bad because it was real time, it was bas because it was done very, very poorly.

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by DarkAngel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I have not played Civ III in sometime. Has it improved at all? What mods would you recommend? I think it has.As for good mods it's kinda like SEIV in respect to there's a ton of mods out there for it. Personally i just use my own material usually. Here is a link to just about anything you could ever want/need http://forums.civfanatics.com/index.php?s= . One thing i would recommend is Snoopy's terrain graphics,they make the game look a lot more realistic. Also if you haven't already gotten it the Conquests expansion is pretty cool. <hr /></blockquote>Too bad there had to be 2 expansions to make Civ 3 even approach the level of Civ 2. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif If CIv 3 would have started out at Conquests, it might have been a worthwhile game. But alas, evil marketing tactics leave us with a huge sum of money for what should have been just the initial release of the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

DarkAngel

March 1st, 2004, 01:59 AM

Just as games change and adapt with the times so must us fans http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

klausD

March 1st, 2004, 02:02 AM

ruatha,
I know the combat mission series. (although I did not like it very much, its too 3D for my taste)
Buts its alot better than a true real time combat engine, so I would not hesitate to buy the game.

thanks for the info.
klausD

DarkAngel

March 1st, 2004, 02:03 AM

Too bad there had to be 2 expansions to make Civ 3 even approach the level of Civ 2. If CIv 3 would have started out at Conquests, it might have been a worthwhile game. But alas, evil marketing tactics leave us with a huge sum of money for what should have been just the initial release of the game I dunno,i played civ3 since the original release and didn't think it was that bad of a game,but then again i modded it to my liking and really didn't play civ2 all that much

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 02:20 AM

Compared to Civ 2 Gold or Civ 2 ToT, the original release of Civ 3 was a joke. Hacked out multiplayer, modding was really hard to do (still rather hard to do, no convenient text files to edit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif ), combat is greatly screwed up in Civ 3 compared to how it was in Civ 2, lack of a scenario folder until one of the expansions, absurdity of how the resource system is set up (didn't find any iron or gunpowder? Too bad, you are screwed), those stupid cultural victories ruining otherwise good games, lack of the ability to use 4 maps in one game for different planets or different layers of a planet (or other ideas), lack of an events system, lack of most of the cool abilities added in Civ 2 ToT, and so on. Certainly, it has a few nice features, but they are far outweighed by the lack of the ones they cut out and the fact that you must spend a huge sum of money to buy the game and both expansions, even though there is really nothing new added in the expansions that was not in the Civ 2 expansions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

DarkAngel

March 1st, 2004, 03:25 AM

Well,looking at it that way.You're right,but unfortunatly that happens all too often when a game becomes popular.They lose sight of what made the game good to begin with and care less about the fan base that got them to where they are.

Desert Fox

March 1st, 2004, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Compared to Civ 2 Gold or Civ 2 ToT, the original release of Civ 3 was a joke. Hacked out multiplayer, modding was really hard to do (still rather hard to do, no convenient text files to edit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif ), combat is greatly screwed up in Civ 3 compared to how it was in Civ 2, lack of a scenario folder until one of the expansions, absurdity of how the resource system is set up (didn't find any iron or gunpowder? Too bad, you are screwed), those stupid cultural victories ruining otherwise good games, lack of the ability to use 4 maps in one game for different planets or different layers of a planet (or other ideas), lack of an events system, lack of most of the cool abilities added in Civ 2 ToT, and so on. Certainly, it has a few nice features, but they are far outweighed by the lack of the ones they cut out and the fact that you must spend a huge sum of money to buy the game and both expansions, even though there is really nothing new added in the expansions that was not in the Civ 2 expansions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif This is exactly why I am playing SEIV. I agree 100% I even stopped testing for Firaxis due to their poor excuse for a sequel. I was fed up right after PTW. The XP's, both of them are only a slight improvement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I am glad I found SEIV.. and this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by DarkAngel:
Well,looking at it that way.You're right,but unfortunatly that happens all too often when a game becomes popular.They lose sight of what made the game good to begin with and care less about the fan base that got them to where they are. And that is when you stop supporting them with your hard earned cash.

tesco samoa

March 1st, 2004, 04:40 AM

who has time for real time games ????

would kill the long games ....

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 04:46 AM

How so? Combat would still be executed by the computer for MP games... it is not as if the entire game would be real time, or as if the combat would require the players to execute it manually.

AMF

March 1st, 2004, 05:02 AM

Hand grenade thrown in 'cuz I've been drinking:

name a real time game that hasn't sucked?

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
How so? Combat would still be executed by the computer for MP games... it is not as if the entire game would be real time, or as if the combat would require the players to execute it manually.

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 05:05 AM

That would not be very productive. I forget their titles, but there have been TBS games that used real time combat in the past that worked out well. BOTF had real time combat, and it worked decently. Too bad the game had no custom ship design.

Phoenix-D

March 1st, 2004, 05:28 AM

The Combat Mission series uses real-time to execute the turns; otherwise it plays like any other turn based game.

Real-time combat in SE5 would change -nothing- for PBW games since the computer runs the combat anyway.

PvK

March 1st, 2004, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by DarkAngel:
Just as games change and adapt with the times so must us fans http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Not really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 06:21 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ March 01, 2004, 04:22: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

bearclaw

March 1st, 2004, 07:02 AM

A thought occured to me while reading this topic...

Something that I really think should be concidered for SEV is a converter option, or at least a compatability for SEIV mods so that all of these wonderful works of art we call mods could be added to SEV! Obviously, there would be some vast differences, but...

Well, don't really have a but... Just thought it might be worth mentioning http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Captain Kwok

March 1st, 2004, 07:11 AM

I don't often weigh in on such matters, but:

SE:V needs to move to real-time resolution for combat. It is simply the best way to even out battles. Right now in SE:IV, so much is dependent on who has firing initiative etc, that battles are almost always lopsided - even between equally matched opponents.

As Phoenix-D mentioned, this is no problem for PBW type games, as all the battle is handled automatically already. "Tactical Combat" if desired for single player could be more interactive, with the user able to define targets and strategies for their ships during combat (ofc, with a handy pause option to reduce possible clickiness) if they wanted.

What is more important is that the engine for combat is done well, so that ships will obey their strategies and such, while avoiding the ills of unintended collisions and run at such a "processing" level not to make the game requirements too high.

PvK

March 1st, 2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by alarikf:
Hand grenade thrown in 'cuz I've been drinking:

name a real time game that hasn't sucked?

... You'd need to be more specific, or I'd just say "Dungeon Master" or "Myth: The Fallen Lords".

PvK

PvK

March 1st, 2004, 09:27 AM

There are pros and cons to turn-based and real-time designs. I can think of good designs for either that I'd prefer to SE4, but SE4 1.91 is quite good. I'll wait and see what Malfador comes up with for SE5 rather than speculating.

PvK

klausD

March 1st, 2004, 10:19 AM

to Imp Fyron:
I dont think that a lot of SE3 players has abandoned the series after SE4 release. The most players had complaints about some good SE3 game mechanics which changed in SE4, but nonetheless played it like hell. "

You obviously did not know the people I knew then. This seems to be true http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Actually... SE4 requires creating 3D shipsets now, otherwie they look like crap in-game. SE5 will simply require either using a different 3D graphics tool, or a converter.But if you compare a SE4 ship with a Starfury ship there are some differences. Of course the ship-design prob is not that what matters.

Also I am VERY sceptical about the real time tactical combat engine. This is a big change to the classical SE approach to this matter.

Yes, but a good change.I think this is our traditional dispute about the "advantages" of realtime games, isnt it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If they leave simply because it is announced to be real time, then they are not true strategy fans. Hey come on, I am THE strategy fan. But I see a realtime game not as a strategy game. I see it as mouse clicking party. Each realtime game I have played (and I played alot) benefitted the guy which had the better mouse skills. Maybe you are one of those with good clicking skills, Iam not. A real strategy game is turnbased. (and 2D) Thats it for me. (and I am sure I am not the only one who likes it this way)

Real time can very easily play just like SE4 combat does now, How can it play like SE4, if there is no "end turn" button - the most important button in the tactical combat game.

Only if it is made to be Starcraft-like real time. God help us.

Of course. Do not presume that MM will pull off another MOO3. MOO3 combat was not bad because it was real time, it was bas because it was done very, very poorly.Oh, for me one of the most negative aspects of MOO3 was its realtime combat.

We have a totally different approach to strategy games. (mine is the more traditional because of my age, I guess) buts its always good to know what others think about the matter.

to PvK

There are pros and cons to turn-based and real-time designs. I can think of good designs for either that I'd prefer to SE4, but SE4 1.91 is quite good. I'll wait and see what Malfador comes up with for SE5 rather than speculating.
Thats a possibility, but maybe if there would be more opposition against realtime elements in SE5 BEFORE the design status of SE5 has ended, the train has a small chance to go to another direction, I guess.

bye
KlausD

PvK

March 1st, 2004, 11:28 AM

The "Combat Mission-like" design suggestion would be that you have turn-based orders, between periods of real-time action resolution where there is no control. That way there is no advantage to clicking skills, and you get advantages of synchronization of movements, and can do away with artefacts like we see in SE4, where there are big stupid side-effects like ships being able to move in, fire, and move out of range, preventing return fire; or ram a faster ship because it "wasn't their turn" etc.

However there are also clever turn-based mechanics to avoid such problems (which Malfador hasn't found yet by Version SE4 Gold 1.91), and it's of course possible to still have dumb problems with a real-time system (see collisions and point defense in Star Fury, for examples).

Combat Mission is an excellent example of that stye of play. I like it, but there are weaknesses even in such a well-done rendition. One is it relies on an extremely good tactical AI, which Combat Mission has but SE and SF don't. Another is the time and thought it can take to pre-plan maneuvers, and the lack of control during action. An issue with 3D views is the usual lack of good perspectives on the whole field of action at once.

I dunno. The design issues are very numerous. Whatever Malfador does for SE5 1.0, it won't please every SE4 fan, since some of us want 3D or real-time, and others would prefer 2D or turn-based, or some combination.

PvK

Atrocities

March 1st, 2004, 12:07 PM

I actually read a review by some dumbarse who thought Masters Of Orion 3 was a far superior game to Space Empires IV.

No kidding. I posted a response to his review that pointed out the fact that nearly everyone who bought MOO3 hated the game and bought either, and in some cases both, SE IV and GalCiv.

I went back to read his response and the thread had been deleted. Go figure, guess some people just need to PLAY THE GAME before they review it.

I fail to understand why the 4 x community sticks to the notion that SE IV is a bad game when in fact it is the reigning king of 4 X and has been since 2000.

I guess these MOO fanatics just can not grasp the concept that SEIV is not only an older game, but it was better than MOO3.

Sure GalCiv is a great game, but it is not as fun over the long term as SEIV. How many of you still play GalCiv?

I like a lot of what they did for the interface and graphis of GalCiv, and I do hope that Aaron has taken note of this as well and plans to incorp simular things into SE V.

I especially like the scenes when you colonize a planet and find things from primitive life to advanced life and have the option of enslaving them, or giving them rights and feedoms and how doing so effects your races ability to influance other races.

No, SEIV is king of the 4 X moutain, and GalCiv is the Queen.

Nuff said I hope.

David E. Gervais

March 1st, 2004, 12:34 PM

I downloaded, installed and played the demo of GalCiv and I was not at all impressed. It played like someone made a turn based arcade game. (think pac man one turn at a time) I would not call GalCiv the Queen to SE:IV's kingdom, it's an In-Law at best.

But hey, I've seen oogles of Ads promoting GalCiv, and even though it's not as good as SE:IV I bet about 1000 times the number of people have heard of it.

But I digress, I already *****ed a bit about this in another thread.

Nuf Said, Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 06:22 PM

But if you compare a SE4 ship with a Starfury ship there are some differences. Of course the ship-design prob is not that what matters.The only difference is that for a SE4 ship, you provide a screenshot, for a SF ship, you provide the model file + texture file. Making the ships is identical in either case.

I think this is our traditional dispute about the "advantages" of realtime games, isnt it?Indeed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Hey come on, I am THE strategy fan. But I see a realtime game not as a strategy game. I see it as mouse clicking party. Each realtime game I have played (and I played alot) benefitted the guy which had the better mouse skills. Maybe you are one of those with good clicking skills, Iam not. A real strategy game is turnbased. (and 2D) Thats it for me. (and I am sure I am not the only one who likes it this way)There have been many real time games that were not click fests. It is very easy to conceive of a real time engine that has no click festing what so ever. The ability to have the game autopause after a predefined (by the user) number of seconds, plus the ability to pause whenever regardless of the timer, and the ability to issue orders while paused would eliminate EVERY single possible click festing complaint you (or anyone) could possibly have. You could pause the game whenever you want to in SP tactical combat. No need to ever click fest, unless you really want to. Multiplayer combat would still be executed strategically, so again, it would not in any way involve any measure of click festing, as it would still have no player intervention, just like strategic SE4 combat. The only issue is hotseat combat, which is problematic on the same computer. So, a solution could be to have "turns" where each player gets a chance to issue orders, then combat is resolved for X seconds, then they get another "turn". This would play just like SE4 combat, except that it would be superior in every way because there would never be any lame situations in which any ship gets to move and fire first unnaturally, just because it is using a turn based system.

How can it play like SE4, if there is no "end turn" button - the most important button in the tactical combat game.See above. Instead of "end turn", you have "run for X seconds". Combat would be executed more in a simultaneous turn fashion, rather than the poor system that is the sequential turn fashion. Simultaneous movement eliminates many of the lame idiosyncracies of turn based movement. Real time (for combat) just takes it a step further and eliminates all of the idiosyncracies of turn based simultaneous movement. With the above system, it becomes turn based real time combat. Instead of the simultaneous turns having a set phase, they have an infintesimal phase, so you never have ships that get to move first, just because of turn based combat.

quote: Only if it is made to be Starcraft-like real time.

God help us.Fortunately, there is 0 possibility of this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Oh, for me one of the most negative aspects of MOO3 was its realtime combat.ONLY because MOO3 was done EXTREMELY poorly. DO NOT take it as an example of a good real time combat system! It is a very, very good example of how NOT to do a real time combat system.

Thats a possibility, but maybe if there would be more opposition against realtime elements in SE5 BEFORE the design status of SE5 has ended, the train has a small chance to go to another direction, I guess.Hopefully you will decide to accept my proposed system as perfectly valid and equivalent to the best turn based combat system this time, so that would become unnecessary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

There is no possible purely turn based combat system that can approach the level of balance acheiveable by having real time execution of combat. Even just having turns where you issue orders, and then watch them executed for X seconds in real time with no intervention (no possible way to click fest there!), is vastly superior to any more traditonal turn based system possible.

Captain Kwok

March 1st, 2004, 06:44 PM

I think my Posts are invisible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by klausD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> However there are also clever turn-based mechanics to avoid such problems (which Malfador hasn't found yet by Version SE4 Gold 1.91), and it's of course possible to still have dumb problems with a real-time system (see collisions and point defense in Star Fury, for examples).
Yes, this is an old problem. Sometimes I think the designers of computer wargames do never take a look to board wargames. The most problems arising with computer game rule design are already solved by SPI, Avalanche or AH years and decades before.

So the problem of the ship initiative in SE4 could be solved with formation activation as beautiful depicted in the panzergrenadier series of Avalanche Press.

bye
KlausD <hr /></blockquote>Ah, but those wargames _still_ have clunkiness in their turn based models that is eliminated by real time execution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Stop thinking of computer games as being the same as board games; they are not, at all. There is a huge amount of stuff possible with computers that is simply impossible with board games.

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
Aside from 'real-time' combat resolution, another idea I see viable for SE:V that can eliminate most of the quirks with the current SE:IV system is some sort of 'staggered' turn-based movement. Rather than Player 1 moves all his ships and fires, then player 2 moves all his ships and fires - have movement alternate between them like this:

Player 1 - Ships A,B,C
Player 2 - Ships X,Y,Z

Order of Movement/Fire
A-X-B-Y-C-Z

This is more like 'real-time' in its execution and will go a long way in improving combat, and from a programming aspect much easier to do.

Battles between fleets of unequal size can still be handled rather easily, if a player is outnumbered 3:1, then the player moves only 1 of his ships for 3 of his opponents etc. This is another turn based system that is covered by my previous statements of all purely turn based systems having problems. It still has the problem of ships getting to move and fire before others artificially, with no realistic reason for it at all, only because it has to be turn based.

Fyron

March 1st, 2004, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by PvK:

Combat Mission is an excellent example of that stye of play. I like it, but there are weaknesses even in such a well-done rendition. One is it relies on an extremely good tactical AI, which Combat Mission has but SE and SF don't.So? SE5 would suffer the same from lack of a good combat AI with any combat model, other than the Starcraft-style RTS model, which noone wants.

Captain Kwok

March 1st, 2004, 07:32 PM

Actually, I'd imagine a real-time system is really executed in a similar manner that I proposed for a "staggered" turn-based model in my post below - it'd be some sort of continuous loop that cycles through each ship on both sides deciding firing targets, movement, etc. Except, in a true real-time system, the cycle is too fast for us to notice and it looks like all ships are moving concurrently.

I suppose the advantage of the "staggered" turn is that it should be less taxing on a computer system. This may not be an issue for real-time combat with small fleets, but I'd imagine it would be much more with the kind of fleet sizes we are used to in SE:IV.

Again, this is not a problem in simultaneous turns, because there are no graphics to generate. But in some sort of Combat Reply Mode or Tactical Combat this can be a major issue unless some sort of restrictions were placed on zoom levels etc.

Overall, it is a very viable option to consider. You eliminate almost 95% of the quirks of strict turn based movement and keep performance at a high level. I cannot honestly provide a real drawback to this type of system, except maybe with fleets of vastly different sizes.

tesco samoa

March 1st, 2004, 08:07 PM

kwok were on the same boat...

That way when things get in the range of a weapon it fires... Steel Panthers had that. Very effective. needed to be tweaked.

I think that for RTS to be effective for a turn based game. Players will have to be able to script what ships do and when they do it. --- And make it moddable and make it so they can save their scipts to files.

And you should be able to script fleet movements as well.

Could be simple as texts or using the simuator to script the ships

All I know is that I want a game where the DF ships are moving to engage.... I tell my ships to hold off on releasing fighters until the enemy comes in range of the missle ships. As a ship comes in range of a missle ship it fires its missles... IF that ship happens to have a weapon that can hit my ship.... Then it should happen at the same time. Not my ship disappears becausae it is that ships movement or something.

tesco samoa

March 1st, 2004, 08:08 PM

or make it like d&d... all actions for 1 second happen at the same time... Then the next actions for the next second.

bearclaw

March 1st, 2004, 08:31 PM

I would think that the simplest method would be to combine aspects of the existing tactical and Stratigic combat methods into a system where each ship is issued ordered and when the End Turn button is clicked, then all the ships execute their orders. End result: combat situations that function exactly like the rest of the game in Simultanious play.

Further, this method, while not practical for PBW, would allow essensially tactial combat for Hotseat and TCP/IP games between players.

I, for one, would be so against SEV becoming realtime combat that I would not play the game. I have never liked real-time combat games. I like to think through my moves like a chess game, not an arcade shoot-out.

[ March 01, 2004, 18:33: Message edited by: bearclaw ]

PvK

March 1st, 2004, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
... Ah, but those wargames _still_ have clunkiness in their turn based models that is eliminated by real time execution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif The "clunkiness" can often be replaced by other problems, though (e.g. Star Fury).

Stop thinking of computer games as being the same as board games; they are not, at all. There is a huge amount of stuff possible with computers that is simply impossible with board games. It's possible to needlessly overlook strengths in both ways. Yes computers can do things board games can't. But that doesn't mean computer game designers can't take advantage of many solutions and concepts from interesting board games. The point was that it's frustrating to see games with lots of potential that suffer from some needlessly limited game mechanics.

PvK

PvK

March 1st, 2004, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:

Combat Mission is an excellent example of that stye of play. I like it, but there are weaknesses even in such a well-done rendition. One is it relies on an extremely good tactical AI, which Combat Mission has but SE and SF don't.So? SE5 would suffer the same from lack of a good combat AI with any combat model, other than the Starcraft-style RTS model, which noone wants. <hr /></blockquote>I was saying that Combat Mission needs more sophisticated AI than many other designs, to work well, and that may be an issue with similar designs for SE5. The Combat Mission tactical AI is very complex and well-done. It's still a source of frustration and limitation at times, though. If it were done about as well as the AI in SE4 or Star Fury, Combat Mission might be an frustrating disaster, with units shooting each other, vehicles ramming each other, dropping artillery on itself, etc. Part of this is because the system puts the details of execution under AI control for a while, to react to the real-time action as it unfolds. I can easily imagine falling into a similar design in SE5, with some big issues. It doesn't have to be that way, but it's a danger.

At least with full-control turn-based orders as in SE4, there is no danger of "the AI did something really stupid and I lost my fleet because of it!" Well, there is if you don't break formation in tactical combat...

PvK