Nope. It just occured to me that it might be about single player vs multiplayer? I don't play 4x games/RTS vs humans only vs AI. My knowledge of VGA planets is purely theoretical and I play SC mostly for the campaign mode. Do you plan your game to be mostly player vs player or player vs AI?
I agree that customization is not that fun/useful in multiplayer.
Actually, and it might be a bit odd, but I intend to support several modes of gameplay:
- PvP, obviously, is the number one reason VGA Planets became as popular as it is. This is an extremely competitive crowd, and a lot of players have written strategy articles on this game (possibly even more than people have written about games such as Starcraft!). The inherent simplicity of the game leads to a strange kind of complexity. Everything appears "simple" from the outside, but the min/maxing is really happening in unexpected ways (not abusing bugs per se, but tiny details about individual ships).
- Single player
I'm planning several single player modes. Of course, there will be the Human vs AIs, where you are spawned in a galaxy where other computer-controller players are spawned. These will have the same possibilities as you (expanding their universe, etc).
There will also be a mode that is more geared towards survival. The game's economy will be harsh and will require management. As a result, there will be a mode in which you are pretty much on your own (no other major empires being built). To spice things up, there will be pirates, and rich planets currently in the possession of their own people (which will require you to invade them with a stronger fleet). Think of it as some sort of sandbox-survival-economic game so to speak where military will play a very secondary role.
Since I'm trying to cate to these crowds, I need to find a system that handles it well. This is part of the reasoning that led me to this idea of a 4X game with minimal ship customization.
Well, don't forget I have a hidden agenda here I like 4X and don't like RTS, so if there is a new game being made I would try to convince the designer to make it to my liking so I can play it too
I'll agree that RTS-4X games are something that I really don't like. They are conflicting genres on many levels: the real-time aspect, for starters, it foreign to the thorough decision-making process found in classic turn-based 4X games. I don't intend to break away from this tradition: this will be a turn-based game.
RTS are generally more about execution of priorities, aka, ordering the things you need to do by importance, and trying to achieve as many as possible with every unit of time. Two different skill subsets are thus required: ability to prioritize and define what you need to do from the witnessable evidence, and speed of execution. I'm much more interesting in the former, which is why Turn-based is a much better approach for this type of game imo.
My references to RTS are not because I intend to borrow from this genre very much, but I find concepts in the RTS genre which are not necessarily exclusive to this genre, but haven't necessarily been imported for 4X games. I don't think its because they are concepts that fit only in RTSs, but mostly that no one has tried to utilize them.
Since 4X and RTS share strategy as a component, I also reference chess very often, which I consider to be one of the ultimate achievements of strategic gameplay. You might also see me reference Stratego, which, mostly introduces hidden information.
In the end, my ultimate goal is not necessarily to create a good 4X turn-based game as much as to create a good game. I try not to limit the scope of this game to that which I know, but I'm not against the game being coinable so to speak. If it can be described as a 4X game, so be it, all the better for marketing purposes :)
I especially liked how Notch described minecraft initially. While the new description he gives is this:
"Minecraft is a game about breaking and placing blocks. At first, people built structures to protect against nocturnal monsters, but as the game grew players worked together to create wonderful, imaginative things"
It used to be this:
"Minecraft is a game about placing blocks while running from skeletons. Or something like that..
Here, watch this video of me testing rollercoasters in the game instead:"
(I used the wayback machine to get the appropriate quote Dated november 01 - 2010)
Notice how there is no coining the type of gameplay, just: here's a game about this, are you interested?
All ships the same... Well, maybe that's a bit too low (maybe like 5 kinds of ships you use all the time), but as a player I find this approach OK. As for many weak ships vs few big ships I'm indifferent, I could go both ways.
But the best would be to allow both, one player could go for hordes of small ships and the other for few battleships (both being balanced and valid strategies). I played this way with a friend and it was enjoyable for both of us.
At a smaller level, I can see this happening.
For example, massing 4 dogfighters to defeat a mid-sized vessel is quantity over quality. I don't think it should go to the lenght of 200 ships to defeat 1 or 2 ships.
Otherwise, I'll also implement carriers, which will essentially be the host to 100-200 fighters, but they won't need to be micro-managed on the actual starchart, as they are considered to be always aboard their carriers when outside of a fight (well, they can be moved from one carrier to another, or to a base, but still).
It's a bit like storyline based 4X (adventure like strategy where you conquer things but first you need to unlock an event to access other sector). Anyway I meant the ship construction part (and how you assign weapons/missiles/shields to the fleets instead to the ships).
Ignore the Galactic Empires if you recall Reunion, these used the same system.
Will need to look into it, I did not remember that.
With that said, the idea of commanding fleet is less appealing given the scope of the game I'm set to work on. A fleet of 2-3 ships is hardly a fleet, and I don't expect packs larger than 7 ships to travel together in my system. (Doing so would leave the entire empire extremely open to enemy attacks, and a single fleet can only capture one planet at a time).
I'd rather let the player control 7 ships entering a sector, and then let him individually break them to explore 7 different planets, capture those he needs, or hit pursuit of a few weak ships within sensor ranges.
I think its much more interesting, even from the defender's perspective, to see several red lights flashing, unaware of what each ship's target really is, and try to guess, and position multiple defensive ships at key positions to thwart the onslaught, than to see one major red blip and send your bigger green blip to defeat it in combat.
It's obviously more tactics, but given the logistical nature of the gameplay I'm trying to establish, it feels better.
I've seen a lot of 4X games where spreading your fleet wouldn't make sense, so I applaud their use of this simplification device, but here, I feel its unwarranted and could do more harm than good.
