Love the concepts you've detailed so far. One thing that's always bothered me about Ancient Ruins is that the results are almost always positive, when in reality I'd think exploring the ruins of a long-dead alien culture should be very creepy. So in addition to the possibilities of a new tech or a new ship, one thing I've always wanted as an Ancient Ruins option is to accidentally awaken a hibernating hostile civilization. This would operate as an NPC similar to pirates, and could be levelled according to the technology of the race that finds it so that it isn't too easy to defeat or too overwhelming.
That’s a great concept and a ptentially ‘neverending’ game would probably attract a lot of interest – like that popular reddit post where someone played the same game of Civ2 for 10 years and it descended into a dystopian 2000-year long war, characterised by the death of democracy, nuclear suicide bombers and the world becoming an irradiated swamp. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_playing_the_same_game_of_civilization_ii/ But, while a ‘neverending’ game is theoretically possible, it relies on empires being able to fall, as well as rise. It would be extremely difficult to model the decline of empires and make that fun to play – most players would understandably be annoyed to see their lovingly-built creations get smashed to bits by forces beyond their control. MOO2 is more about the space-opera shenanigans between a bunch of rising empires, and anything more is probably beyond the remit of this game. Still a fun idea though. Incidentally, I am wondering what the timescale for this game will be, since that does affect the lore, the map, and the frequency of events such as supernovae. A lot of space 4x games use ridiculously short timescales like 1 turn = 1 week. So you end up seeing humanity taking to the stars, colonising the galaxy, and becoming demi-gods, in something like 30 years. I think it would aid immersion to slow things down a little. Maybe even 1 turn = 1 year. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that even with FTL technologies it would take 4-5 years to get between stars. And your leaders would only have say 50-60 years of service before needing to be replaced. So a 400 turn game represents 4 centuries and you would plausibly see a lot of turmoil events and rising / falling empires over that time.
Thank you for the link to The Eternal War - I had never heard of that one, fascinating read! I like that, a lot. Actually, at 4-5 years between stars, you don't need "FTL" anymore - typical distances between stars in the Milky Way Galaxy are 3-4 lightyears, so speed of light is fine. If there was a technology (some kind of reactionless drive?) to boost your ships to near light speed (and, somehow, escape any collisions with dust, and survive the storms of X-rays from extremely blueshifted starlight...), crews could easily explore multiple star systems within their "natural" lifetimes (thanks to time dilation at high relativistic speeds). Meanwhile, back at home, the years would pass, new technologies would be developed, etc. - the furthest ships would always be the oldest (unless they return to the core worlds). It took only a couple of centuries from the first european colonies on the East Coast to the US becoming the worlds superpower, so on a time-scale of 400 years (or so), I can totally see some space colonies reaching maturity and empire-wide influence. I also like the idea of time-limiting the service of leaders.
I really like your ideas about keeping exploration fresh throughout the game, rather than limiting it to the initial phase – so it seems a shame that the ruins will only be searchable once. Perhaps some of them should reward further study, or provide an ongoing benefit. They could come in stages - ‘hidden’ ruins which appear later, or even ‘vaults’ which are somehow tech-locked. Vaults would be fun, when you know there’s something interesting in there, but you can’t get past the alien metals / energy fields until late-game. Yes, if the results are always positive then there’s no strategy as such, like most 4x games where you just dash around the map and ‘pop’ as many ruins as possible. Ideally there would be some kind of trade-off between rushing to plunder a site before the enemy empires get there, and carefully studying the place so that you don’t accidentally awaken Cthulu. One way to keep exploration fresh, even from game-to-game, would be to have a semi-randomised selection of extinct races whose ruins are scattered across the map, each following a different precursor trope (the warrior race, the science race, the psychics, the ancient AIs, etc). They wouldn’t always be present each game, and their backstory would be different each time. You could uncover their history by searching ruins, completing quests like in Endless Legend, etc. I envisage little story pop ups to add flavour, like speaking to the Planetmind in Alpha Centauri. For example, in game 1 you find the ruins of the warrior and science races. Through further study you discover that the warriors won, but then succumbed to bitter infighting afterwards. Eventually you find a vault left behind by the science race which contains some cryogenically frozen survivors from the science race – they will join your empire (provided you don’t remind them of their original conquerors too much!). In game 2 you find warrior, science, and machine race ruins. You rush to open the science race vault, thinking it will be a bonus like last game, but it turns out that the scientists created the machines to fight the warriors, only it backfired and the AI tried to kill *everybody*. By cracking open the vault you have reawakened the source of the ancient AI which suddenly spills forth as a hostile NPC. If you’d done more ruins research you would have found clues that it was lurking there (or even found ways to reprogram it into a benefit), but in your haste you’ve restarted an ancient war. These are just random examples. I know it’s ambitious, and the game could portray all those individual events as unconnected pop up bonuses and maluses, but by having an unknown narrative to uncover, that links all the events and turns them into a story, they could become more engaging and keep the player’s attention over multiple playthroughs. You really WOULD be exploring the unknown each game, which would hopefully make it sufficiently creepy.
gja102, i like your ideas and i have wished for these kinds of scenarios to play out in these kinds of games for a long time now. Sadly though i have little hope for it actually coming to be, unless Endless Space 2 does it. I believe that game will have an excellent quest system. Most of these space games though are all Moo2 remakes, and Moo2 didnt have it so none of these remakes/spiritual successors are going to have it. None of them want to innovate or deviate much, and that makes me sad. I have already played Moo2 to death, and Stars in Shadows is a very close remake that is out now, and they all get kind of boring because they lack interesting events. I found Endless Legend to be so good and refreshing because it was so innovative and had excellent stories/quests. Lets keep the dream alive and hopefully before we die we can get a space game that has this kind of questing and dynamic storytelling.
Just re-read the thread and I am wondering, have you determined a scale yet? How many systems do you anticipate on map? Knowing this information helps in thinking about other issues as they arise.
From about 35 systems in a small map to 140 in huge. That accounts for all kinds of systems, from normal main sequence star systems, to other more exotic ones like black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, brown dwarfs and rogue planets. Note that not all systems contain planets, but may contain other goodies. Of course, these values are still a work in progress and may change quite a bit during the course of development.
140 for huge? Sounds not enough, given that Stellaris has 1000 (some of them with a quite extensive layout) on highest setting. I think these 1000 should be the new standard in modern 4x games and not 140.
140 Moo2 type systems is more expansive than meets the eye. I can't recall how many times I had over 20 productive colonies while controlling only about 8 systems. If the distances are calculated well it would work but I can see this being a point of contention with a substantial part of the community. (Torches being lit, pitchforks picked up) If anything, I would suggest that a superficial increase would be in order, in other words, increase the number of no-value, low-value systems. You would basically add more space... to space but not disrupt the balance of other mechanics such as fewer but more important ships, research rates etc. (Just make sure the algorithm spreads these systems out well) You would also add strategic depth to the game and minimize steamrolling somewhat. Personally, I would welcome a game where I can see the entire map as in Moo2 without clicking around and zooming in and out. 1000 Moo2 type systems (with corresponding ratios) would throw the entire game wildly off balance. I partially agree with JOM, 140 systems might get a negative reaction but you do not need to go to 1,000 in my opinion, you can easily do considerably less and stay "modern" around 250 perhaps P.S. the flavor would be more representative of a Space Sector or globular cluster of stars rather than a galaxy You can even put in an energy barrier around this cluster like Star Trek to give a psychological explanation for the size of the map and have a very late and expensive tech to breach it, another victory condition perhaps?
If the game is a Moo2 clone, then the numbers (35-140) are about right. But Moo2 was released over 20 yrs ago, do we really want another Moo2 clone, or game that advances the genre and offers something new and interesting? I would like to see a game in this genre have about 5000-10,000 stars, but still only have a few dozen at most colonies per empire. With that many, they would basicaly become the background graphics of the galaxy map. The Milky Way is huge, its estimated to have up to 400,000,000,000 stars. Within 20 light years of Earth are 150 stars. That 20 light yr radius volume is only 0.000000006% of the galaxy. Am I to believe that the entirety of a Moo2 huge map game is to take place in only such a small fraction of the galaxy? I know a game cant have a 400 billion stars, but if you make it sufficiently huge with thousands available, it should convey the grand scale of the galaxy.
The number of colonies a player needs to manage must remain, well, manageable. That's an important consideration when people start tossing large numbers around. Stellaris is not a traditional 4X game, but rather a 4X/Grand Strategy hybrid. It has multiple systems in place that allow a player to manage vast numbers of star systems. This game isn't just a clone of the 20 year old Master of Orion 2, but it is, as stated in the vision and mission statements of the Master Plan, an attempt to build a true spiritual successor. There is certainly room to add new and interesting ideas to the formula, and that is the goal of this project, but those improvements don't necessarily have to involve vastly changing the scale of the galaxy to be worthwhile.
This is something I think a lot of space 4x games miss out on. Why does everything have to be about entire galaxies? Why can't we just be focused on a particular sector or area of space where certain species happen to have evolved and are now coming into conflict? If the scale of this game is going to remain small, which I'm perfectly fine with, just help it to make sense by never using the word "galaxy" anywhere in game creation or the game play map. Make it clear the game focuses on a limited sector of space and people will be less likely to constantly bemoan the lack of thousands of stars on the "galaxy map" if its actually called the sector map.
Like it or not, certain aspects of 4x games are contentious and divisive by their very nature. The presence of star lanes is such an aspect, RTS versus TBS is another and so is the size of the map. In reading the various materials posted here I had anticipated a small map size but in all honesty I was surprised at just how small the developers had in mind. I played Moo1 and when 2 came out, I believed it to be superior in every way except one, the map size had actually decreased. Oh I know we now had multi planet systems which gave the game an illusion of being bigger but the fact is we had fewer systems than before. This not only bothered me on a personal level but manifested itself in a negative fashion throughout the game. The feeling of exploring the vastness of space quickly gave way to a feeling of standing room only, the map was dense and crowded. Strategic depth which was somewhat adequate in the early game disappeared entirely as fuel cells affected the game. The deeper we got into the game the smaller the map became. Steamrolling an opponent became easier. Microprose could be excused for many shortcomings as there was no history to draw from, no past mistakes to learn from. Developers today have no such luxury or excuse for not addressing certain issues during development. The game as envisioned so far, would never work with 1,000 systems, I understand this on my own but the number being floated around is too small. Look at it this way Some won’t mind at all or actually praise the decision Some will mind but overcome it Some will never overcome it and may not even give the game a chance because of it As a business man I would look at ways to diminish the negative effects of the map size, particularly if it can be done in a way that does not change the core vision or game. For example Explain it a away as part of the game lore Increase the number of systems, even 10 more would get you past a minor psychological barrier. (What sounds better 140 or 150?) No one is denying that you can infuse fresh ideas into the game without a huge and drastic alteration to the star map. At the same time, denying that this issue is critical to the success of the game is also unrealistic. My advice then is simple, retain your core vision but address this issue in any credible way possible.
I'm completely open to the number of star systems being increased, but it shouldn't be done if the core game system isn't designed to handle it in an elegant manner. Explaining it away as part of the game lore seems like a fine idea to me. As echo2361 suggested, the game could simply explain that it tells the story of a small pocket/sector of space and the interactions that took place between the races that live there. This even opens the door up for additional races from other sectors to potentially get involved in the future. I also don't think a difference of 140 vs. 150 maximum star systems is going to make or break the game, so I'd agree in that regard that increasing the maximum value slightly to include a more rounded number would make for a better marketing pitch (if you mention it at all, but I'll get to that). I am going to have to disagree that the number of star systems is that important of a factor in whether people will or will not buy a space 4X game. First of all, what is a star system? Is it something I am going to be intimately involved in managing and manipulating or something I set and forget? It's easy to say a game has 1000s of stars if all of them are automated or easily disregarded. That can't be surmised from a line of marketing. That is something that has to be experienced or relayed via a more in-depth review or video. I'm a veteran 4X gamer like many here, and I've always been a quality over quantity guy myself. The maximum number of star systems is a meaningless statistic to me as long as the game is well designed enough to work well with the number provided. There obviously isn't a lot of documented work to prove or disprove whether or not the number of star systems present in a 4X game influence a consumer's decision to purchase it. We can however take a look at what some of the 4X games on Steam have decided to include in their marketing blurb in the game's description to see how important they've evaluated this to be. Here's a review of some space 4X games I'd considered to be popular and/or recent releases: Endless Space 2 - Not listed Stars in Shadow - Not listed Master of Orion CTS - "Vast galaxies featuring up to a 100 different solar systems, each composed of myriad planets and stars" Galactic Civilizations III - Not listed StarDrive 2 - Not listed Endless Space - "With hundreds of star systems to explore" Stellaris (not a 4X, but a 4X/Grand Strategy Hybrid) - "Enormous procedural galaxies, containing thousands of planets." We can see that of these, only 2 of the true 4X games mention the number of stars at all. Endless Space includes "hundreds", but as someone who has a significant amount of experience with that game, I can safely say that having that many stars did not benefit that game in any way. Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars, which is a big budget title which is quite popular, states up to 100, which is actually less than proposed here. As an aside, Star Ruler 2 proposes "The size of a galaxy is only limited by your hardware and ambitions!" but despite this is far from the most popular space 4X game on the market and was a commercial failure. I'm not going to dive into details on the game itself as I haven't played it, but the number of star systems being limitless doesn't appear to have helped it much. Perhaps among some hardcore space 4X fans the number of star systems in a big deal, but if we are really concerned about the success of the game in the marketplace, I'm convinced that other factors, such as the number of technologies and especially unique races that are being offered, are of far more importance when considering quantities (as opposed to other aspects such as aesthetics and production value). When it comes to veterans especially, I think the unique aspects and twists put on the tried and true formula is what is actually going to set the game apart and garner interest.
Greetings A.R.M. Please do not misunderstand me. Overall I feel that you and the rest of the Devs are doing an outstanding job. It is my nature to see both sides of an argument and at times I tend to play the devils' advocate which is why I bring certain points of view to the forefront. In essence I agree with you but the lack of statistics does not mean that there wont be a small minority that will not appreciate the star map. In my experience dissent is voiced in a manner that is disproportionate to the numbers of those dissenting. I only suggest that any minor action that can be taken to remove dissent should be looked at, there is nothing to lose by doing so. As for the rest of my concerns, I have faith that should any issues arise, you will acknowledge them and correct them prior to launch, you and the rest of the Devs have proven quite flexible thus far and this does instil me with confidence.
Oh, it's no problem at all. If I came across as harsh at all that was definitely not my intent. I understand and appreciate you taking a look at a problem or idea from all angles. That type of critical thinking is a good thing to have around here, so please keep it up! Also, for the sake of clarity, I'm not a direct member of the dev team. I have a close working relationship and trust developed with the team based on my years of contributing articles and reviews to the SpaceSector site, but I don't toil in the design and code from day to day as MalRey and Adam do. They have far, far, more hours of blood, sweat, and tears put into this project than I do. My current role is chiefly to assist with moderation of the site. Of course, I also offer advice and suggestions to assist with the design in much the same way the entire community has been invited to do. Certainly a valid point. As a counterpoint I'd say we can make the same argument about nearly any aspect of the game though. If the game included X or increased focus and features in area Y, it would certainly be more appealing to group Z. There's also of course a diminishing law of returns when too much focus is put into any specific area when it comes to gaining gamer interest. Also true, but again applies to all areas of the game. We have to be careful not to allow our personal interests to cloud our judgement about what is or isn't important. This is why having a strong vision and mission and sticking to them is vital to a game's success, especially in this era of crowdfunding. A very fair and valid point. There's potentially everything to gain and nothing to lose from evaluating all ideas and voices of dissent. The very fact that we've had this discussion is certainly something that will benefit the game in the long run regardless of the eventual outcome. Bringing up subjects of concern is important, and I highly encourage everyone to do so. I occasionally choose to respond with counterpoints not to discourage, but in some cases just to temper the expectations of what can reasonably be done with the dev team size, the budget, the time available, and the vision and mission kept in tact.
Not harsh at all A.R.M. quite balanced in fact. Wanted to share some info with you today. IG2 had a total of about 75 planets. This was executed in a way that was nothing short of brilliant. To find these planets you had to literally scour every square inch of the map. This created a feeling of searching the galaxy for the few places you could inhabit. Strategic depth was also retained throughout the game. In this case the small number of planets was never an issue as it was dealt with in game by certain mechanics.
This dev diary post is my favorite one so far. I see a lot of ideas in this that I like. The Galaxy While the various space 4X games have had different color stars, I've rarely felt they took real cosmology into account, or that a star's spectral class made much (if any) difference to what kind of planets you might find... and more the pity, I would say. That Space Sector intends to be different is very promising already. Hell, it might not be an exaggeration to say I would buy the game just to see that. To touch on an above discussion, I would not be offended if 35-140 stars were the range for one game (especially if all of the star systems are actually interesting/useful). Quite the contrary, if you intend to keep only the original MOO2 victory conditions (conquest, be voted lord of the galaxy, beat Antares), I would prefer for there not to be many hundreds (or thousands!) of stars. Exploration I've always felt that space 4X games could do more to make exploration interesting and intricate. The OP ideas about remote exploration and different "scan" levels not only sounds great, but it's realistic, too. We mere one-planet humans would probe for and gather all the information we possibly could before starting a mission to another world, and space age civilizations would have even more tools at their disposal for this. I also agree with the goal that discoveries and surprises should keep coming for the entire game, not just the beginning. In addition to suggestions already listed (new objects popping up on the map as the game progresses), another idea is a chance for new specials to spawn on planets at certain breakpoints in the game. Possibilities for these breakpoints could be the strategic resources mentioned in the research diary (maybe new specials could be one choice), certain techs (better scanners to find buried ruins/resources, new explosives or automation to dig deeper on planets, new xenology or planet science advances to better recognize anomalies, etc), population levels (more people exploring/stumbling across stuff), or simply time. More Planet Special Ideas Unique resources Something like the near-unique resources of Distant Worlds (there were always three ultra-rare resources - ie one per galaxy -that could significantly help your whole empire and were easily worth fighting wars over). Edenic world Bonus to morale and tourism, a stronger bonus than Natural Wonders. Natural fortifications The planet's terrain is ideally suited for defensive fighting. Bonus for troops to defeat invaders and survive bombardment. Smugglers den A hideout for a smuggling ring who are willing to help your empire. Bonus to freighter total (maybe depending on how much money you want to donate to the smugglers each turn). Abandoned cache A hidden treasure cache, left by pirates or explorers who never made it back. One-time bonus to credits and/or a free tech. Dead probe A dead probe launched by a long-vanished empire (or maybe even a forgotten project of your own). Offers free "full scan" data for planets in this or a nearby system. League of Shadows A hidden base where an elite clan of spies and assassins train, and they will help your empire to preserve their secret. They offer you a free spy or two, a spymaster leader, or even a spying-related tech. Enclave A small enclave of spacefarers who prefer to remain hidden from the galaxy (but aren't criminals or killers). To repay your patronage, they offer your colony a regular bonus (money, research, access to a unique building, etc). Hostile natives Industrial (or later) natives whose civilization covers the planet and who are hostile to aliens. Colonization is impossible, you have to conquer the world with your own troops (and/or orbital bombardment). Apollo's world The world is home to an inexplicable godlike being who terrorizes your colony (or simply claims it as its own) until you can destroy it from orbit. There should be a bonus (ruins, another really good special) to make it worth the hassle. Failed colony The remnants of a colony that another current empire (or even your own) attempted with generation ships before they developed FTL. Not advanced enough to count as ancient ruins, but a free low-level building or two that your own colony could use. Stranded leader A leader/hero was stranded on this planet, and will sign up with your empire gratis in return for being rescued. Primitive ruins The ruins of a race that went extinct while they were still pre-industrial. Not good enough to count as ancient ruins, but a bonus to tourism. Wormhole nexus The star system is the focus of several wormholes leading to other places in the galaxy. Given its obvious strategic importance, such a system might have ancient ruins on at least one planet. Depleted world A world that was ruthlessly strip-mined by an ancient empire, to the point that even millennia later (ie now) it remains a barren, worthless rock. On the upside, ancient ruins are guaranteed. Pleasure planet The planet is the home of a galaxy-renowned alien celebrity (who uses it as a pleasure palace, theme park, reality show site, etc). The alien isn't competent enough to be a leader, but owning a colony his planet grants a mild diplomacy bonus. Dark energy fields The planet's surface has a unique energy field that your scientists can tap into as a power source. All buildings and fleets at this planet have reduced or no maintenance costs.
I love huge galaxies and I agree that the exploration is very important. I think Star Ruler 2 has one of the best representation of an universe. The only limitation is your PC. Look at this beauty. Five galaxies, different sizes and types, all waiting to be explored. For me something like this would be amazing. Of course, something like this involves a very good optimization, especially in the late game.
I want to expand on this a bit more and offer a clearer explanation of my stance on it. Before doing that however, I just want to take the time and say that I thoroughly enjoyed your post and the ideas you presented. In my opinion these could be implemented with minimal effort but offer a very good return. Now to the topic of how many stars. I wish I could say that the number of stars is not an issue for me but it is. This is not to say that I am looking at this from purely a mathematical perspective (1000 stars = good, less = bad,) quite the contrary. My belief is that 1000 Moo2 type systems would be unworkable without major alterations and additions of automated processes, even then, it could present other problems in the game such as relating to pacing. The problem for me is less the actual number of stars or systems but more so in how those stars relate to and create strategic depth. Moo2 had very little strategic depth, usually you explored the systems in your immediate vicinity and if you were lucky perhaps a bit more before you ran into another race, once this happened, like it or not, you were now at a different stage of the game. In Moo2, playing a large map with 8 races meant that on average, a nine system empire for all, translated into a saturated map. This was mitigated somewhat in the early game where slow engines and limited range still played a role, once faster engines and extended ranges came into play there was no strategic depth to speak of. (Warp interdictors helped somewhat but not enough) 140 stars would double the depth then, (unless of course there were more than 8 races present), so what more could be done? actually a lot and it need not take great effort to do it. Speed will play a factor, the longer ships stay slow, the longer the map will feel big Range will play a factor, Keep ranges limited with only incremental increases as tech progresses, the longer this is done, the longer the map will retain strategic depth. Not allowing newly conquered worlds to instantly and automatically extend range will help. (Similar mechanic to 2056) Etc. As I stated in another post I have seen 75 planets total feel like a galaxy because a lot of these issues (and others) were addressed so it may be worthwhile to consider them. This brings me to another issue I have, namely referring to a map this small as a “galaxy”. I think this could be explained nicely but I want to polish my idea a bit more before I present it, if nothing else it should offer some entertainment value.
