galaxy map - basic concepts:

I second the Zones of Thought concept. Though, imho, it would be extremely challenging to implement in a game. In essence, the developers would be required to implement 3 wholly different game modes.
On the other hand, this could be managed as an type of "eras" of development - the civilization would "rise" to a next zone when it would discover the required tech...
No matter how you look at it, it would be interesting!

 

I also like the zone of thought idea, but also agree that it will likely add to the challenge of designing the game.

 

I would also prefer 3D and would wish it looks also like follows:
besides a rotatable 3D universe, i would love to look at it in 2D:
imagine rubiks cube, i hope you know what i mean, and you look at it from one side, lets say you look on top.
now you ses the the upper row. now if every little "dice" would be one sector, you would see only the uppermost.
now it would be possible to go down the floors.
the same would be possible in a sideway. therefore you could see all layers of the cubus from all sides.
i hope you know what i mean.
it would work kind of the switchable map in the X-Games.
one look would be in the X-Y-Plane, the other in the X-Z-Plane.
But the sector map there was also only 2D. and it would be better if it is there also 3D.

Would it be possible to create all, the whole game in the way, that all things behave like a cube in minecraft?
so lets say you start big:
one cube represents a galaxy, which is made out of sector cubes (or a 3D-pixel), then the sectorcube is made out of system cubes and the system is made out of emtpy cubes or planet cubes.
now when creating everything with cubes (like in minecraft), even the ships could be made out of it. also the planets.
and the view at those entities would behave like described above:
you could go through the levels in X-Y-Planes, X-Z-Planes, Y-Z-Planes, the 3D-Rotation and the 3D-Walk through.
Now I hope you understand what I mean.

And thanks for reading up to this point.

 

I'd actually prefer a 2d map, I find it easier to navigate and plan my moves.

I like the idea of a huge galaxy (1000+ stars) with range limits that decrease with technology improvements. I don't like the idea of a single scout being able to explore the whole map. Range should be limited by fuel storage capacity and maybe crew endurance too. There should be enough interesting stuff to do in the early game apart from exploring.

This is my own pie in the sky thinking, I realise that I'm possibly being over ambitious and there are limits as to what can realistically be done and what can't.
My ideal map would be 5k+ stars, with system setup modelled on what we currently know about astrobiology, so you're unlikely to find livable worlds around Class O blue giants but much more likely to find something nice around a orange star.
Obviously this isn't a hard lock, just how I would set my own universe up. It would be important for people to have the option to build any universe they want.

 

a clean 2D display is much preferable to some dubious 3D maps which cannot properly displayed on a twodimensional PC-screen. MOO2 knew how to create perfectly serviceable star maps, so no need to change it.

 

You are totally right with 2D and the perfect overview it gives, but space is not 2D.
i mean, to please both, it could be the way, that from the top down view all stars/systems can be seen distinctively, but the height is only shown when you (wish) to rotate it.

 

I prefer even a bad 3D Map like the one in Sword Of the Stars to 2D. But it's not critical IMO. Especially for a Turn-based game perhaps 2D is even preferred.

 

At inter-stellar scales, space is not Euclidean either. Furthermore, there is no universal time, you need to represent it in 4 dimensional space-time. If realism is important to you, then you need to factor in these facts also.

Personally, I prefer a game to value gameplay and immersion over scientific realism. Space is not 2D, sure, but neither does it match 3D Euclidean geometry.

What matters is gameplay. A 2D map is less cluttered and easier for humans to interrpret. Give us that, overlayed over some beautiful galaxy images. Leave realism to astronomers doing simulations.

 

The Star map, being one of the first things a new player gets introduced to, should be pleasing to the eye (first impression) but streamlined and functional. 2d is fine and can be done well. In all honesty I would probably favor a tactical style map rather than actually trying to re-create the milky way. The tactical map would work well at system level too, something clean like the system maps of "legions of iron"

 

What games do you think have a good galaxy map?

I like how ES looks. Very pretty. But the game was too streamlines for my tastes.

 

The best map I encountered was in a gem of a game called Imperium Galactica 2.
The map was simplistic looking but allowed for full manipulation, in other words you could zoom in/out, rotate, set it to flat (top down view) or any range you were comfortable with.
The exploration of this map was brilliant. At start you were presented with a living galaxy with a thousand little pin lights representing stars, your scout had no way of knowing if any planets existed without actually scouting every inch of the map. This gave me a practical map to explore that felt quite real, if this model were then to be enhanced further with additional celestial objects it would be top shelf.
The game I quote is hard to find by the way but if you can find it, play it.
Another cool map that I found had a good balance between function and looks would be the one from Armada gold, however it would require some functionality upgrades to be excellent. (Funny game Armada, all the ingredients are in place yet the game is boring)

 

In fact, there is one thing that bothers me in many new 4X space strategy games: the "galaxy shapes" (spiral, elliptical, irregular etc.). I think this is completely useless, as galaxies are (of course) much bigger than any number of stars a game like this can realistically have.

MoO2 got it right in the sense that it just filled the playing field with stars - this was your "Orion sector" which you had to conquer and as such, it was only a small portion of a much bigger galaxy you were in (at least that helped me keep the illusion going). Again, in a game called "space sector", I would expect to find the "sector" approach (at least as an option!) as opposed to various galaxy shapes.

 

I like your sector idea but i think the sector itself should be hidden in the game, such that no player can see its borders, rather, a sector would be a region of space with many stars but only 1 habitable star. For example, the galaxy has 1000 - 5000 stars, most of which have gas giants or red dwarfs with uninhabitable planets like mercury or Neptune. But for ever 100 stars there would be 1 habitable one, so you have colonies that are spaced apart and habitable planets are rare finds, but there could still be a hundred of them in a galaxy. The sectors would be used by the galaxy generator, such that it would divide the galaxy up into 100 sectors, put a dozen to a few hundred stars in each sector (amount depending on if its close to the center or further away) and then in each sector it would place 1 colonizable planet. But other planets in that region could still be useful in a limited sense, such that they could have special mining stations or secret spy bases.

 

A huge galaxy in Moo2 was 72 systems, some of which were empty or offered no value. In total I think you could have about 250 celestial bodies in a game that could be exploited in one way or another.
Even a map with 500-1000 systems would work very well if 20-30% of those systems offered anything significant of value.
A lot also depends on what kind of effort is required from the player to manage the colonies that will become available.
Heavy sophistication and management of colonies should be counterbalanced by having fewer of them.