You may have a warped understanding of what 4X is.

Quoting Wikipedia: 4X games are noted for their deep, complex gameplay. Emphasis is placed upon economic and technological development, as well as a range of non-military routes to supremacy.

The game concept I'm tackling is complex, has a strong emphasis on economic, and to a point, technology (though this could be arguably called logistics and chain production investments in my case). There are viable non-military routes to supremacy.

Your judgment seems to be based off recent 4X titles, but one might argue that, following this trend, someone might be misled into thinking my game is real-time because its a 4X game, even though, there were actually much more turn-based 4X games released in the history of video games than real-time, though, this has changed dramatically since the last decade or so.

I suggest to retheme/remarket your game, because if you call it 4X you will get tons of disappointed players.

You always get a ton of disappointed players. If you're good enough at showing what you want to achieve and what sub-crowd you're willing to cater to early on though, the term 4X won't harm that much, given that they'll see what the game is about. It is one of the things that I appreciate about kickstarter projects, as they are essentially pitches that resonate with a playerbase. Though I'm not looking at crowdfunding for this project, I'll use a similar approach to expose the idea to the playerbase long before release, giving them an input.

The thing is, if you open up too early, you'll receive valuable comments, but from people outside of your target audience, and your game will end up pleasing no one. By putting your vision first, restricting your playerbase to your actual target audience, the value of the comments you'll receive will increase as it will correlate more with the end product you should be releasing.

So, in brief, I'm not terribly worried about the impact of the "4X" term on the potential playerbase. Plus, this is a design thread on a game development-oriented website. I don't anticipate to get any form of marketing done in that regard, and I'm willing to accept the bias the 4X term might create.

If you are making space chess then yes, removal of ships customization is not only acceptable but even highly recommended, such a game would not make sense with ships designer.

I'm willing to add a bit more depth through player interaction with certain elements of the game. The big problem with ship customization is that its way too easy to end up with too many components, or something that can't quite be balanced.

A system such as Galciv2 ends up being very boring imo, because there's no predicting the outcome in a tangible way as there are too many variables.

What I liked in VGA Planets was the limited amount of customization choices, but I feel like this is either lacking, in which case it would lead to more complexity, or could be done without.

If you are making 4X then removal of ships customization is tricky. Possible under some circumstances but not recommended.

Like I said, I'm having cold feet here.

Reading through older gamedev threads, I saw a suggestion to put something like:

Primary Weapon

Secondary Weapon

Support Systems*

I like how you'd have a slot to have 2-3 support systems that you need to choose from a list. It could help you maximize damage, increase sensor efficiency, etc. And basically, everytime you pick one support system, you're basically weighting the cost of NOT putting every other system in its place, and to me, that feels very strategic.

In my game however, Engines would also be a key element that I'm not sure I can do without given the mechanics (for economic reasons).

So the list would be something like this:

Primary Weapon Group

Secondary Weapon Group

(Optional Tertiary Weapon Group on some ships)

Support Systems (2-3, depending on hull size)

Engine Type

Would that be reasonably simple?

Look at Civilization and Alpha Centauri. Both have highly limited customization as compared to some games, and both are generally very well received by players.

I don't see customization as all that important. I would be perfectly happy with a game where I had even just 3 or 4 classes of ships that I can improve over time with research. Older fleets get sent back to dry dock to retrofit at a fraction of the cost of constructing entirely new vessels.

Look at Civilization and Alpha Centauri. Both have highly limited customization as compared to some games, and both are generally very well received by players.

I don't see customization as all that important. I would be perfectly happy with a game where I had even just 3 or 4 classes of ships that I can improve over time with research. Older fleets get sent back to dry dock to retrofit at a fraction of the cost of constructing entirely new vessels.

Customization of ships is just a fancy tool to make obsoleting units more fun. Some games (like Civilization) use different tools for obsoleting units (in this case researching complete new units as eras progress). Both methods lead to the same outcome, a way to obsolete units.

But Orymus3, to my understanding, wants to remove the whole obsoleting units concept :) And that's waaaay more controversial. The only games without obsoleting I can remember are tactical games (RTSes, tactical wargames simulating some historical battle), but for a strategy... I can't recall even one I played (althrough probably there are some).

If you want all ships to be equally useful in a given situation then you need an extra mechanic in their that makes them so.

Take chess as an example it would be easier for to win If I started with 8 queens instead of 1 but that doesn't mean I'm invincible my opponent can still defeat me with superior planning and positioning.

You could give each ship class a basic ability

1 - Fighter - Ignores Shields on ships size 4 and above

2 - Pursuit - Can attack bomb planets and bases

3 - Cruiser - Triple speed

4 - Battleship - Can attack multiple times per round

5 - Carrier - Launches fighter escort.

6 - Base - Repair, and shield nearby friendly vessels.

I use cruisers for quick attacks but if I want to destroy colonies then I need pursuit vessels or battleships.

If my opponent has battleships then I need a host of fighters and carrier ships.

I was quite surprised someone mentioned BOTF (Birth of the Federation). I've been fleshing out a design of my own that has been heavily influenced by my many hours spent playing BOTF back in the day.

My research led me to your discussions here, and I have found them to be quite a big help. I arrived at many of the same conclusions you have while developing my own design. I thought I'd throw in my own two-cents:

BOTF has no ship customization at all (as previously stated). Instead, you would start with access to a limited number of ships (Colony ship, Scout ship, Troop Transport and perhaps Destroyers) and would unlock more as you progressed technologically. However, ships never really became obsolete. They would decline in power as more advanced ships were unlocked, but all was not lost. Each ship had a more advanced version of the same hull type (i.e. Destroyer -> Destroyer Mark II). Therefore, if you had built a large fleet of Destroyers early that is now looking week in comparison to your neighbors fleet of brand new top-of-the-line Battleships & Battle Cruisers, you could concentrate your research on the tech necessary to upgrade to Destroyer Mark II's, revitalizing your entire fleet into something that is once more a threat (instead of researching more advanced ship hulls).

While I believe this worked quite well for BOTF, this is perhaps too far on the left of the customization spectrum (left being the least/none).

My current design is using set ship hulls, with a hardpoint system. Each hull has a limited number of hardpoints available. Each hardpoint has a designated role (Light Weapons, Heavy Weapons, Point-Defense, Armor, Shields, Engine, Special ect.) And playing with the numbers of available hardpoints of different types alloys me to specialize hulls (i.e. Carrier, Strike Cruiser, Scout etc.), as I like the idea of having to choose to concentrate your research on unlocking a hull for a specific purpose, and not just be able to modify any hull for any use.

Multi-purpose harpoints, and racial or technological abilities could allow you to convert a certain number of hardpoints to a different type, allowing for other interesting mechanics.

The idea is to make customization present, meaningful and fun, but quick. I'm aiming to have no more than a dozen or so harpoints on any ship, to keep customization from becoming too time consuming. This is especially important if you’re aiming for a multiplayer capable game (which I am).

That’s the direction I’m exploring right now, and any comments or criticism would be more than welcome!

Look at Civilization and Alpha Centauri. Both have highly limited customization as compared to some games, and both are generally very well received by players.



I don't see customization as all that important. I would be perfectly happy with a game where I had even just 3 or 4 classes of ships that I can improve over time with research. Older fleets get sent back to dry dock to retrofit at a fraction of the cost of constructing entirely new vessels.

I've taken a step aside from these games because, while Alpha Centauri is sci-fi themed, it, like Civilization, deals with a world with obstacles (aka, not space). The movement is so different that I feel a lot of design decisions were made based on that.

That said, I'm still well aware of their design.

As Acharis stated though, I don't want designs to become obsolete per se. In essence, I don't want them to become cannon fodder or retrofittable units.

But Orymus3, to my understanding, wants to remove the whole obsoleting units concept And that's waaaay more controversial. The only games without obsoleting I can remember are tactical games (RTSes, tactical wargames simulating some historical battle), but for a strategy... I can't recall even one I played (althrough probably there are some).

Once again here, VGA Planets doesn't have obsolete designs. I mean, sure, the mid-ships were a decisive threats in the middle game, and by the time everyone started building bigger ones, they served a much more limited purpose... but to me, that's much better than games where your early units won't even scratch the bigger ones. It gives you a feeling that every ship is important, and to me, sending ships in outher space is so expensive that, in essence, every ship should matter.

The Enterprise-A would probably no match for Enterprise-E's armament in combat, but if it still roamed space, it would still serve a great purpose, and the longer it serves, the more profitable it has become.

Because my game deals with a lot more than just warfare (ferrying cargo for example), ships can be relegated to other missions to keep them relevant at all times, but I'd like for them to also remain relevant in the late-game, even as less potent threats. Assuming you can circumvent the enemy's defenses, they should pose a threat to inside colonies.

Take chess as an example it would be easier for to win If I started with 8 queens instead of 1 but that doesn't mean I'm invincible my opponent can still defeat me with superior planning and positioning.

Unless the Queen costs a lot more... If there is a resource system involved, players might willingly settle for 4 knights instead of a queen, because, unlike chess, every piece moves each turn, and that can help you corner your opponent quickly.

Imagine playing 20 knights vs 4 queens. Sure, the queens might be able to take a few kills, but before long, they'll be walking a boobytrapped floor. Even worst in a 10 rooks vs 4 queens I would assume (assuming each player plays all of his pieces every turn).

You could give each ship class a basic ability

1 - Fighter - Ignores Shields on ships size 4 and above

2 - Pursuit - Can attack bomb planets and bases

3 - Cruiser - Triple speed

4 - Battleship - Can attack multiple times per round

5 - Carrier - Launches fighter escort.

6 - Base - Repair, and shield nearby friendly vessels.

I don't actually use these class definitions. Each species has a finite number of core design classes, each with their own basic pros and cons (is it stealth based? does it have large cargo holds? how much fuel can you fit in their tanks? how many weapons? are they easy to hit?, etc).

So, in that regard, I can pretty much go in-depth as many ships are already best suited to operate certain mission types, helping them remain relevant throughout the game.

As far as your above mentionned definition goes:

Every "cruiser-class" type of hull in the game does benefit from being faster in general.

Every "carrier-class" uses fighter squadrons

The others wouldn't necessarily apply, but I see your idea, and I can work towards getting a few more unique abilities per hull or hull class.

I use cruisers for quick attacks but if I want to destroy colonies then I need pursuit vessels or battleships.

I use artillery ships for that, but they suck at close quarter. Pretty much in line with what you're suggesting.

If my opponent has battleships then I need a host of fighters and carrier ships.

This one I answer more organically. Battleships tend to have fewer weapons. For this reason, the player will feel he needs to equip better weapons, and engage larger targets. When faced with fighters, because of his limited arsenal, the ship will fire one-hit-kill-rays at fighters, but at a slow space, meaning that a sufficiently large fighter squadrons will have the advantage of numbers.

In general, in my current ship list concept, the carriers have the upper hand over battleships so long as they are out of range. When the battleship finally engages them (if he has survived) he can generally takedown the carrier very quickly. I like that there is no "hard rule" at work, but only gameplay elements organically shaping this outcome, and I want to do more of that.

BOTF has no ship customization at all (as previously stated). Instead, you would start with access to a limited number of ships (Colony ship, Scout ship, Troop Transport and perhaps Destroyers) and would unlock more as you progressed technologically. However, ships never really became obsolete. They would decline in power as more advanced ships were unlocked, but all was not lost. Each ship had a more advanced version of the same hull type (i.e. Destroyer -> Destroyer Mark II). Therefore, if you had built a large fleet of Destroyers early that is now looking week in comparison to your neighbors fleet of brand new top-of-the-line Battleships & Battle Cruisers, you could concentrate your research on the tech necessary to upgrade to Destroyer Mark II's, revitalizing your entire fleet into something that is once more a threat (instead of researching more advanced ship hulls).

In this case, ship customization is replaced by tech upgrades. Interesting. Food for thought at least.

My current design is using set ship hulls, with a hardpoint system. Each hull has a limited number of hardpoints available. Each hardpoint has a designated role (Light Weapons, Heavy Weapons, Point-Defense, Armor, Shields, Engine, Special ect.) And playing with the numbers of available hardpoints of different types alloys me to specialize hulls (i.e. Carrier, Strike Cruiser, Scout etc.), as I like the idea of having to choose to concentrate your research on unlocking a hull for a specific purpose, and not just be able to modify any hull for any use.



Multi-purpose harpoints, and racial or technological abilities could allow you to convert a certain number of hardpoints to a different type, allowing for other interesting mechanics.



The idea is to make customization present, meaningful and fun, but quick. I'm aiming to have no more than a dozen or so harpoints on any ship, to keep customization from becoming too time consuming. This is especially important if you’re aiming for a multiplayer capable game (which I am).



That’s the direction I’m exploring right now, and any comments or criticism would be more than welcome!

I like the "simplicity" of your system. Very interesting, and I'd probably play that!

My vision however is a bit different (and so it should, otherwise, we'd be making the same game, and that'd suck 'cause I'd have no fun playing yours!).

I really want to build around the lore of ship-centric designs.

As an example:

Race X

- has an "interceptor" that focuses on speed (because it needs to intercept) and firepower (so it can kill bigger things) "Gunship class"

- has a destroyer that has few but very powerful guns so it can take on larger enemies. Would be good against larger threats such as a battleship

Race Y

- has an interceptor that focuses on speed (because it needs to intercept) and fuel tanks (so that it can sustain pursuit) "Scout class"

- has a destroyer that has many guns. While the player could put big guns, this design would become too expensive given its expected "health", so it will generally be used to sweep down multiple enemies (aka, Fighters)

As you can see, Race X and Y would behave much differently in-game. Race X would send interceptors against slightly bigger ships without grouping them in fear of race Y putting a destroyer that could takedown many interceptors in one sweep. But he'd send his destroyer without fear of the opponent's destroyer as it would have the upper hand.

Race Y would chase down the enemies it can to the confines of the universe and field destroyers where he expects the enemy to try and send masses of interceptors or carriers.

Its not a very good example, but it should tell you how I envision each race to play differently.

but to me, that's much better than games where your early units won't even scratch the bigger ones. It gives you a feeling that every ship is important, and to me, sending ships in outher space is so expensive that, in essence, every ship should matter.

Oh, then it's a different story. You will have ships getting older (obsolete) and newer ones becoming more powerful, but still the old ones will have some worth and use. That could work I guess.

Well, once again:

"Obsolescence is the state of being which occurs when an object, service, or practice is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working order. Obsolescence frequently occurs because a replacement has become available that has, in sum, more advantages than the inconvenience related to repurchasing the replacement. Obsolete refers to something that is already disused or discarded, or antiquated.[1] Typically, obsolescence is preceded by a gradual decline in popularity." -Wikitionary

I'm looking to build a system where, even if the late game, you're likely to build "old" ships because they still serve their purpose very well. Though they may be smaller, and pack less firepower, they may be more cost-efficient.

For example:

Ship 1 - Mass 100, firepower 10, Resources 100

Ship 2 - Mass 150, firepower 15, Resources 200

Ship 3 - Mass 200, firepower 20, Resources 300

Ship1 is the most cost-efficient, but at 1 ship per turn, building just Ship1s is eventually going to suck in late-game battles.

Ship3 is the most powerful, but building just ship3s will end up costing too much resources, thus limiting your ability to build as many ships as your opponent.

Add-in specific abilities for each:

Ship1 - Speed X 2

Ship2 - Cloaks

Ship3 - Armor 10

You'll want to use ship3 to defend important planets and deal the bulk of the damage in serious invasions.

You'll want to use ship1 to circumvent defenses and hunt down freighterlines or scout.

You'll want ship2 to do devious things such as keeping watch on your opponent, pick on their ship1s without them realizing it, etc.

The fact that you progressively earn access to these ships does not make previous ships obsolete over the course of the game: you'll still need fast interceptors, cloakers, and cost-efficiency in the late game.

If you really want to go for no obsolete units, and, well, all units have their purpose that makes them desirable to build then I would allow the access to them all from the very beginning. It's more consistent with the chess gameplay.

BTW, will there be research in the game? Will it just be +X damage to all your units? It might be a bit tricky with that system.

If you really want to go for no obsolete units, and, well, all units have their purpose that makes them desirable to build then I would allow the access to them all from the very beginning. It's more consistent with the chess gameplay.

Possibly, but I like to reward players that can do more with less. For example, in an RTS (Starcraft 2) you could technically get away with the bioball, which requires much less investment in infrastructures (buildings) and allows you to build more units instead. It does work well.

Then again, someone with a dedicated high-tech plan might just work as well. For example, the Protoss could rush to Dark Templars (well that wouldn't work competitively, but a surprise Dark Templar represents a sizeable infrastructure investment that opponents may not expect early).

As a result, choosing when and how to tech, in regards to the ships you need (and when) is key to making things work. I'd be ok with a player going for large amounts of smaller ships be able to go for big numbers and low resource counts. The opponent would have to do something to force his hand into committing to higher tech.

On the contrary, a player whose strategy includes higher tech tier units would not have numbers, but he'd have bought versatility, meaning he can quickly react by building lower-tier ships if necessary.

These could balance out one another.

This game does borrow from chess, but doesn't need to be a strict chess 2.0, otherwise, it wouldn't be a 4X :)

BTW, will there be research in the game? Will it just be +X damage to all your units? It might be a bit tricky with that system.

I'm pretty much sticking to my plan for "research", which was discussed in a different thread. It will not have a tech tree as is usually seen in later 4X games. I'm really more with the DOS-era approach to this, where its more logistics and infrastructural investments. I do find value in a system where time plays a smaller role. If you want to tech very fast in the early game, you can field a potent warship early, but your economy might never recover. Doing so might mean you'll be stuck with that single ship 10 turns before you muster the resources to make another, so most players will not go straight to max. I think it also forces players to focus on their economy and how they'll manage their resources, thinking ahead, etc.

There won't be any passive increase of stats, just unlocking the actual new components. These components will be stronger, but cost more per unit of power.

Its a bit like computers. You can buy a cheap one cheaply, it can go on the internet for emails and use the microsoft suite, or you can buy a good one for several times the price, but be able to game, or do 3D stuff, etc. Components will have that same feel to them where you can probably get by with beams Lv1, and engines Lv1, but if you expect for your ship to meet heavy resistance, you might invest in Lv2, and if you expect your ship not to defend but to always be on the offensive, and require good mobility, you might go for Lv2 engines.

At least that's how the system I have works right now.