I've decided I think star lanes/hyperspace lanes are a good thing for games

wow....I was wrong!

from GalCiv2 Forums

After over a decade of complaining when a game has space lanes, I have come the the conclusion that I have been wrong all these years.

 

I used to complain because I felt the space lanes thing restricted movement in an unrealistic way, and I was dead set against them.  I think I may have been put off becasue so many crappy games had them (like ascendancy), and my favorite space game MOO didn't.  I now realize that for the most part, these restrictions are not only good for gameplay, they arnt automatically bad from a realism sence either.  The big problem with games without space lane restrictions is that too often, ship range becomes limitless for all practical purposes, and so you lose any sence of front line, or safe area in the rear.  There's also much less strategic fun, since you just pick a target, and go at it, as opposed to certain 'choke points' developing into major bones of contention.

 

The realism issue comes from saying that ships travel in hyperspace and such to get between stars quickly, but yet we get games where in the vast expanses of space, we get masses of ships trying to form the boundries that are lacking because of the lack of any structure to the "landscape".  There is no way that a race with slower ships should ever be able to prevent another races ships from zooming past them....ever....yet we get this all the time.  In fact, its highly unlikely you could ever intercept a fleet while its in hyperspace (traveling faster than light no matter what you call it).  So much like Babylon 5 or Stargate, you may be able to tell a fleet is coming, but you have to setup for the arrival...not try and prevent it.

 

Now Im not one for realism just for the sake of it, and gameplay needs to be King...but I really do beleive that gameplay improves in most cases when we dont have these huge open expanses of space being guarded by a few ships inbetween the maultiple light years of the open void

 

I love GalCiv2 in all its iterations...but have found that the lack of any structure to the maps (no terrain, not even nubula like moo) does give me a little longing for something better.  Sins, have solidified that position...

 

I LIKE SPACE LANES.....

 

and my deepest "you were right" appologies to the many I surely fought it out with on Usenet all those years ago

 

.

15,372 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

I won't say I'm against space lanes, but neither I am for them at all cost ...

I like space lanes, and I like open spaces

different strategies, different tactics, everything is good as far as I'm concerned.

 

Though, to combat the "no front line", I modded my galciv2 games to reduce drastically range, even if I couldn't really achieve what I aimed for, probably due to game range calculations limits. (unless I missed something somewhere but I don't think so) (the real point was that being able to reach half the "immense" galaxy with the starting ships seems really a little ... too much!)

Lastly, you may say that you didn't like ascendancy, but saying it's a "crappy" game is pushing it. I liked it... for the atmosphere. An area where the galciv series still needs work in my humble opinion(even if the latest technology additions with TA added a little more atmosphere).

Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Lastly, you may say that you didn't like ascendancy, but saying it's a "crappy" game is pushing it. I liked it... for the atmosphere

 

Whoah...you must have been young, gullable or both when ascendancy came out.  Just for the sake of my sanity...and because I loave denegrating this crapy excuse for a game at every oportunity as a kind of repayment for my wasted $39.99 @ eb games.

 

Ascendancy, the game that let your huge fleet of ships fight...1 at a time against the 1 enemy jugernaught...so that all you need to win any space battle was the ONE better ship...numbers meant almost nothing.

 

Ascendancy, the game that was all atmosphere and some of the best races EVER, too bad they forgot to include the game...no I said Ascendancy not Spore...but I do understand the confusion.

 

Ascendancy, the first and only strategy game I have ever been able to win, WITH MY MONITOR OFF!  I started the game, choose the human race, and set it at the hardest setting...I then turned off my monitor, and pressed ENTER (next turn) for a few minutes, until my amazingly crafty strategy of DOING NOTHING BUT PRESSING NEXT TURN, saw that my opponents had decided I was just too good an voted me galactic Gran PooBah or whatever and I won.  I did this to prove a point to a friend, but it is a true story...saying the AI sucked doesn't begin to tell the story...there was no AI

 

Ascendancy, the game for those who find doorknobs complex puzzels.

 

WOW...its been what...15 years?

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Yeah, the lack of terrain tends to be one of big weaknesses of space games - we all know how empty space really is, and it can be difficult trying to justify some sort of "terrain" in space.

Problem is, terrain is one of those things that adds a lot more depth to a game. I really like games where I can choose to battle at choke points or open fields or with barriers of different types.

So, yeah, I guess "lanes" does help strategy a bit by avoiding space being so "open" and adding a little bit of "terrain" to it. Sins does seem to implement it well.

I had my doubts at first as well - I've always played games that were a bit more open space like Homeworld. Single player was pretty good because they were able to add obstacles and do stuff like have nebulas you could hide in. Unfortunately, those concepts never really made it into multiplayer, so I never really got interested in it. Multiplayer was just who could build the most ships and move into an attack position first.

But, then I played Sins, and found I liked it, despite my first thoughts of the space lanes being a bit silly.

I would like to see more ideas involving virtual "terrain" in space. Even if it's not totally realistic, being able to add more depth and strategy to a game is good.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

-_- :annoyed:

I guess some people don't know how to restrain themselves ... *sighs*

anyway : 3.5/5 from 7512 people hardly makes it that bad : http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/221

and as you can see, there was an AI patch but ho well ... it's not like I really care

if your profile is true, I guess I'm waaaaay younger than you, but so what ? is age the new selection criteria?

I talk about atmosphere and immersion, you answer with AI problems and then you say that I was too young and gullable ?

and finally does a game absolutely, NEED to be challenging ? not at all it only depends on what each person expects from a game

 

ho and by the way, galciv2 DL+DA+TA has totally crappy AI, you can totally abuse the diplomacy system, so I guess the game is total crap and worth nothing, isn't it ? :|

Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

you can totally abuse the diplomacy system

I would point out that the diplomacy system exists for the sole purpose of being abused. That is, it was designed that way. The diplomacy value makes no sense without the AI capitulating to a high diplomacy factor.

Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I have to say that I think the original poster makes a very good point. Although my view differs in some aspects.

The best implementation of space lanes, open space movement, teleport gates and whatnot is arguably in Sword of the Stars. Different races have different methods of moving through space, and they all coexist in the same setting. Humans use traditional space lanes, Hivers crawl in sublight speeds but can set up instant teleportation gates when they finally get to their destinations, Zuul use space lanes which they create themselves and so on.

If you haven't had a look at the game, I heartily recommend it. It scratches at a slightly different itch than Galciv and I enjoy playing them both.

Another interesting difference in mechanics is the peace/war state between factions. While Galciv took the approach of "everyone is at peace unless they declare war", SotS has an approach where "everyone is hostile unless you declare a non-aggression pact". I have to say I like the SotS approach better: there's skirmishing goin on as soon as you meet your neighbours, making the galaxy seem like a more active place. That said, I understand that Galciv wants more features in the galactic level. It would be hard setting influence starbases if the galaxy was a more hostile place. I just personally find most diplomatic & influence options boring because the AI can't cope with them as well...

...does it even try to make a grab for an ascension victory?

Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

If you want to create terrain and choke points in this game you can use the map editor and create zones on the map by placing asteroid fields in rows. This might be a little more work but I think you can create the desiered effect.

Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

AI: In GalCiv2 i find it more annoying that the AI cannot handle their ships right before they filled each planet with X ships and you can wage wars against them while they have 3 time more ships and planets because they wont form any fleet.

 

 

Movement System:

Open Space is ok for me as long as your range is limited and your speed is not so fast that the defender cannot see an attack coming. So there is still only a limited amount of planets you have to defend.

 

But what I prefer is a system where everyone moves at the same time like in SotS but unlike MoO2 where the AI could see where your ships *will* be next turn and always attack the undefended system making attacking yourself the only viable tactic.

So you do not need to to watch your fleets moving (especially bad in SE) and you cannot move your fleets based on scanner data you should not have untill the end of the turn.

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting jstarz01, reply 7
If you want to create terrain and choke points in this game you can use the map editor and create zones on the map by placing asteroid fields in rows. This might be a little more work but I think you can create the desiered effect.

lol ... well I find the idea itself quite funny but beyond that, I don't think it would work out well since I think if you own a mine you can pass through it :w00t:

maybe try it out with lines of suns :bebi:

Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting Vallu751, reply 6
I have to say that I think the original poster makes a very good point. Although my view differs in some aspects.

The best implementation of space lanes, open space movement, teleport gates and whatnot is arguably in Sword of the Stars. Different races have different methods of moving through space, and they all coexist in the same setting. Humans use traditional space lanes, Hivers crawl in sublight speeds but can set up instant teleportation gates when they finally get to their destinations, Zuul use space lanes which they create themselves and so on.

If you haven't had a look at the game, I heartily recommend it. It scratches at a slightly different itch than Galciv and I enjoy playing them both.

Another interesting difference in mechanics is the peace/war state between factions. While Galciv took the approach of "everyone is at peace unless they declare war", SotS has an approach where "everyone is hostile unless you declare a non-aggression pact". I have to say I like the SotS approach better: there's skirmishing goin on as soon as you meet your neighbours, making the galaxy seem like a more active place. That said, I understand that Galciv wants more features in the galactic level. It would be hard setting influence starbases if the galaxy was a more hostile place. I just personally find most diplomatic & influence options boring because the AI can't cope with them as well...

...does it even try to make a grab for an ascension victory?

I like the idea of skirmishes until a non-aggression pact is signed.... maybe it could be limited to no star base attacks until war is announced, but u can attack ships until non-aggression is announced