Ideal 4x Travel

[MasterChiToes]

I think warp points are overly delimiting for developing realistic strategies... However, this is vastly outweighed by the limits in AI and definable strategies. If the game was smart, then I'd dump the warp points and let the game evolve a more realistic and wider landscape of possible strategies.

[Raapys]

I don't like GalCiv's style. SEV's style is alright, but a bit boring since travel is instanteneous. Would love to see warp points that actually took several turns to travel through. Travel time could be dependant on distance between the two systems, engine technology and warp point type( slow, fast instant, etc. ). The danger level could then vary from warp point to warp point, slower warp points being safer, etc.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The strategy game Ascendancy uses that exact warp lane style. It's kinda old, though.

[Randallw]

while we're on the topic, does anyone know if the size limits for some wormholes actually counts? I've seen a few that say nothing more than, say 500kt, can pass through only to see larger ships have no problem.

[AgentZero]

Randallw said:
while we're on the topic, does anyone know if the size limits for some wormholes actually counts? I've seen a few that say nothing more than, say 500kt, can pass through only to see larger ships have no problem.

No, the size limits don't matter. They were going to, so the descriptions were added, but the feature itself didn't make it.

[AstralWanderer]

The downside of "open travel" (GalCiv, Imperium Galactica, etc) is not just the difficulty of defense but how it encourages the use of "stacks'o'doom" (where an attacker piles every ship they have into a single massive fleet, capable of destroying anything else). GalCiv imposes (artificially low) fleet limits to counter this strategy but that has other downsides.

"Limited travel" systems (with warp points, warp lanes or MOO2's "committed movement" system where a fleet cannot be recalled until it has reached its destination) make the "doom stack" approach less effective since it is less able to arbitrarily switch targets, making it easier to counter.

A hybrid setup (where warp points could be used for fast but limited travel, normal space for slower, open travel) would be the most plausible system but I have only seen this implemented in the play-by-mail game Spiral Arm - here systems are connected by hyperspace portals but you can also move one fleet via "deep space movement" to any other system, albeit more slowly. This gives defensible chokepoints but also the possibility of surprise attacks on inner systems.

Warp point creation in SEV offers the option of surprise also but it is too easily countered (System Gravitational Shielding).

[Xrati]

If you use an open map, then you are playing a real strategy game. The universe is not 2D and the realism of a map that can emulate that is where the real challenges come in. A warp point system is very defined as you know where your enemy will come from and can have a 'welcoming' fleet. OR you can just mine the WP's and stack fleets on them. Even when you can open your own WP's later game tech prevents the use of them.

I think the best games are open maps and fleet restrictions. Lets face facts that one command ship could not possibly handle hundreds/thousand of smaller ships. Command has to be broken down into smaller control groups. A large attack fleet consisting of smaller groups make sense.

[aegisx]

What is the Stars! travel system like? I played that and VGA planets, but cannot remember.

It seems to me that the length of battles plays a major issue. If attacking a planet actually took a while, ridding the space around it of enemy ships first would be important. Most games now have battles usually ending pretty quick. In SE, after the WP, most battles will take place on the planets, as intercepting fleets is difficult due to quick movement speed.

[Xrati]

VGA was open map (if I remember right). Stars I'm not familiar with.

Remember that a simultaneous movement game in SE is different then a turn based game in SE. There are merits to both systems. Simultaneous movement is the better way to play multiplayer games. Turn based is good for playing against a computer opponent as the AI's just don't do well in simultaneous mode.

While most battles will be over key areas, the WAR will cover vast regions.

Remeber that Space is BIG!!! Ships are small...

[aegisx]

What is the technical difference between simultaneous and turn based mode? I have not played against the AI in a while