On team games this strategy does not work due to the incredibly retarded player placement scripting in the game. I have tried 4v4 on HUGE random multi-star maps. In both cases, it placed all 8 players in only 2 of the 5 star systems. In one game it set it up basically 2v2 and in the other it set it up 3v1. Needless to say, the game degenerated into two seperate 'medium map battles' and in the second game the poor 3v1 guys were instantly crushed (no fun for anyone.

The 'team' maps that are designed for 3v3, 4v4 are all small in size. Ironlore designed the maps, they are supposed to be targeted for number of players etc. but they are in fact tiny and encourage rushing. Combine that with the player placement and the game is just awful for multiplayer. Example, played twin empires 4v4 and it set up one player from each team intermingled in the duel homeworlds. So we actually had 4 seperate 'point blank' scenarios. Of course what it should have done is set one team in one empire and the other team in the opposite empire, then we might actually of had a 4x game.

I agree that single player FFA games against AI can be more like a 4x game but after winning a dozen or so of these games, I find them boring compared to GalCiv 2. If i wanted AI/single player i'd play GalCiv 2. Too bad the multiplayer, where I think the pacing is great for a combo RTS/4x, is so poorly thought out.

This is a little abstract for me. I'm just curious as to the specifics of this. What would you do to make the game become more like a 4XRTS, in a little more detail? (Taking into account that the game needs to remain playable in real-time.)

- How would you improve diplomacy exactly? What options would you add?

- Which alternate victory conditions would you include? And how would they affect gameplay? If you added a certain research victory, for example, I'd be pretty cheesed if you won the game by researching some abstract technology while my fleet is wiping out your planets. I'm not even sure how you would be able to stop someone, because we can't actually interrupt the research process of another player.

- As for "influence", do you mean culture? I will agree culture is underused in MP right now, but that doesn't mean it's not effective enough. Or did I misunderstand and do you mean another type of influence?

- What's included in "better and more diverse empire building"? What would you add to the empire building process?

Mind you, I'm asking all these questions because I'm curious about your ideas about this, not because I agree or disagree with you. I'd just like to see something a little more specific that really also considers the fact that it needs to be manageable in (1) a multiplayer environment, (2) a real-time playing environment, and (3) a play-balance sense, which seems to be difficult enough to maintain as it is.

This is a very interesting discussion, let's keep it going (and let's keep it polite)!

@brindle Hmm, while that proves to be fun and challenging during single-player action I can see where it can be downright "unfun" in some cases in multiplayer. I wonder how hard it would be to add setup options for starting locations on random maps. For instance, what if you could control:

Spawn in same/different star system as teammates (2 stars with 2 teams of 2 players - start in same system or not?)

Player placement in multiple star systems is even/confined/random (Even = 3 stars with 6 players - 2 per each star; Confined = 3 stars with 6 players - 6 in one star system and expand; Random = completely random)

This is just a thought. It would bring more "order" to things while still utilizing a random map.

Just so I'm clear here (I've only played a couple small LAN games so far and we're still learning the tech trees and such), but there are no options of player placement in MP besides random?

So those "3v3" maps and such don't actually put a whole team to one side, etc?

Well, if we're going to entertain rough ideas in this thread, I'd like to offer a couple:

Research - Like the Alpha Centauri series, there could be a whole line of research options solely devoted to this victory condition. Eight levels worth. After someone researches each level, a global message would be displayed telling everyone that "PlayerX has researched Road to Transcendence" or whatever it happens to be. Spending time and resources on this will likely cause other areas (specifically, fleet size) to lag a bit which will leave players going for this condition more vulnerable. Stopping it would involve scouting and striking research centers (I assume research stops when you no longer have enough centers to support it). Under the current system, this research line would probably have to go in either the Civilian or Military branch (rather than its own) so that the player would have to choose between practical research and victory research.

Culture - If X percent of your empire is under the influence of hostile culture, start a timer. If the timer runs out and you haven't rectified the situation, you lose. To combat this, build more cultural centers and position your capital ships where they can assist.

Very rough ideas, of course but those are the two easiest things that come to mind.

So yes... another 4X vs RTS thread. At least its official. Nice to see some constructive comments for a change... hope I can contribute to that, with a nearly-coherent post

In any case... I have to agree, I was kind-of hoping for more of an empire-building RTS. In fact, I came across the game while investigating Disciples 3 and GalCiv 2... I ended up holding out for Sins (mostly because Disciples seemed at the time to be vapourware, and GalCiv2 in real-time REALLY intrigued me ).

Now, I play and love the Command and Conquer universe and games. I've played my share of Star Craft (LAN and SP), Warlords Battlecry II and many other obscure RTSs. All, except the Homeworld series (I could never get used to the interface).

I love RTSs. I love 4X games (Civ 4, etc).

IMHO: I'm really enjoying Sins. I believe it delivers what it promised and is a great platform for even more improvement in the future.

The fact is, that finding a balance between RTS and 4X is difficult. As an (obvious?) example: Yes, buildings on planets would be fun - it would give a bit more variation to the planets and might add a lot to the immersion. However, having to manage that, the orbital buildings AND your fleets, would just end up becoming a chore IMHO. Automating it would make it more manageable, but more-or-less destroy the immersion-effect people are looking for. Its always a trade-off. No game will EVER be perfect, no matter how many times the Melancholics of the world try to analyse it

However, something else that was mentioned above about capital ships, got me thinking:




This is the one thing that really dissapointed me... And I think, this is one additional reason some of us on the forum are shouting for a single player campaign: the mystery of the tech-tree. Those of us with the empire-building mentality (that leans more to the 4X side of things than the RTS-side) want a branching tech-tree and more defined victory conditions. Its fun playing and working yourself up the tech-tree for those shiny toys at the end... whatever they may be.

Plus it gives you a goal to go about working with a definite strategy in mind - in other words, every game is different since you're forced to think in more diverse ways. At the moment, it pretty much comes to: Research everything to get the most resources and the best guns, level everything up, build a big fleet, mop up the enemy.

The game is a sand-box game, which I can fully appreciate. I feel that the only problem is that the sandbox is slightly too limiting.

In any case, i'm hoping that was at least a bit constructive Just to make sure... a v1.04+ wish-list:

1) Better diplomacy... not too deep, but not as silly as the current implementation (covered in other threads).
2) Branching tech trees (that forces you to choose a single path and locks out the rest)
3) Multiple, more defined victory conditions.
4) Upgradable (do I put rockets batteries or fighters in this one?) outposts in non-colonisable systems... with special abilities, to keep it interesting, of course...
5) Better defenses... for us empire-building turtlers
6) Hidden tech-trees... Don't show me items beyond the next research topic.
7) Epic, motherships Super-weapons for every branch!

In any case...



Agreed And the post is finally over...

Troll.

Anyway I played this game again today after my initial disappointment, taking the advice of psychoak and I was surprised to find that it is quite a different game. It still strikes me as too fast paced to be considered as anything other than an RTS, and I still feel somewhat conned by reviewers for saying it was more than an RTS, but the depth that is there does shine through on a larger map. I'm still not certain I fully grasp everything in the game yet (underdevelopment tax...?) which is probably skewing my perspective, so I'm going to force myself to play a while longer.

This is correct. Players are randomly placed on homeworlds, usually intermingled. In 3v3 it often results in 2v1, 2v1 setups where one player is sandwiched between two opponents.

Don't mind Kruelgor. He's abrasive, yes, but he's not a bad guy. I was a little turned off by his comments at first but I just keep in mind that his words are strong.

Good to hear that you are finding the game to not be a bust. I think that the pace boils down to just a matter of taste. You can also adjust the speed when setting up the game, as well as adjust the speed in game with the + and - symbols.

If you are still having trouble start a new thread and just ask for help. Plenty of us are willing to help... even Kruelgor

I imagine if we took every map and split it into two systems, a great many problems would be alleviated. Sova rushing, and spam/rushing in general, would lose a great deal of power seeing how you'd be required to research long jumps, and then find the opponent in the other system.

Personally, I felt a bit mislead. It's not the game it was advertised to be. However, that being said it's not a bad game anyway, once you get over it's not what you thought it would be.

When I want to play it slower, I play Lost Empire: Immortals. When I want to play it faster, I go play Starscape (Yes, I love Indie games).

When I want to have a more easy going game I play this. I just wish this was more advanced to suit my wishes, but the way the game is now it's still fun in it's own way.

So, if I'm reading this right, a lot of the spam issues and cheese strats wouldn't be so much of an issue in larger, more balanced maps? I mean, it makes sense in a way.

Brad, this seems like something very easy to fix, yeah?

This game is not a 4x game. To be able to call it so is to have not significantly played any recent RTS games. That said, I knew that before I bought it.
I saw the 4x label applied to this game and got interested. I followed along with all the prerelease info, and couldn't find anything in the game that looked like 4x.

But I found an interesting RTS game, so I bought it. I then showed it to my friends, all 4x fans as well. I didn't tell them anything about the game, just showed it to them. Their opinion after watching it was "Oh, it's like starcraft!".

There's no more "4x" in Sins than there is in say...age of empires, which also has some basic diplomacy and resource trading options tacked on. Like many, I consider MOO2 as the gold standard of 4x games. Interesting research (new effects, rather than +10% gold mining), multiple ways to achieve victory, multiple, full tactical combat, and things to actually find when you explore. Sins is just an RTS with a slower pace. And it's not like the slower pace allows for much, combat takes longer, but there's less options for micro so it's not even like you can have indepth battles, building takes longer so it's not like you can respond to a fleet plowing through your empire, everything simply takes longer. Additionally, every player has access to essentially the same abilities and research, so there's no unique advantage to exploit over the other players unless you get one of the rare exploration bonuses.

Sins is a fun RTS, but to in any way act like it's done something other RTS games hasn't is a disservice to games dating all the way back to age of empires, and a disservice to the entire 4x genre.

I really don't want to see SoaSE turn into "Galactic Sliders: Adjusting tax rates in real time!". Not that dislike empire building games, I just have a hatred towards sliders that pepole seem to love. Does SoaSE have as much depth then Galactic Civilizations? Nope. But neither does SotS yet its a 4x game, the only features it has that SoaSE doesn't is sliders (weeeee), a very basic ship design system, and a random technology tree.

Is it possible Sins is being labeled/thought of as 4x because it bills itself (I think rightly so) as a strategy game?

Regardless, some key differentiators between 4x and RTS for me are:

*Pacing (like Brad mentioned). In RTSes, you *have* to know the keyboard shortcuts to respond quickly to threats.

*Research depth. RTSes typically have short research trees (usually with 4 distinct ages or so). Sins goes pretty deep in a variety of areas in comparison with most RTSes.

*Micro-management. RTSes necessitate both micromanagement of units as well as being a numbers and efficiency master. In Sins, you can be inefficient with your resources or units, but if you have good strategy you can overcome this, for good or bad.

*Exploits and game focus. A lot of RTSes focus on exploiting a few units to be successful in multi-player. Sins, while subject to spamming, is geared more toward strategic use of resources and combined arms than a lot of RTSes, plus is more focused on single-player mode than multi.

Are RTSes bad? Nope. I love quite a few of them, but they sure play differently than Sins. I'd classify it as a 4x-meets-RTS hybrid.

I think the problem here is that newer or very casual players in Sins will confuse the game for some sort of 4x hybrid, when it is clearly a RTS (pure RTS) in every sense of the word. The fact that the head developer believes it's primarily (or at least significantly) a 4x game is very disturbing.

There are plenty of very slow paced RTS games. Just because they aren't mainstream like Blizzard RTS, does not make them less of a RTS. Kohan and the Seven Kingdoms series, just to name 2, are very long games by RTS standards. They have extensive and deep tech (sorta like tech trees), and they are not reliant on hotkeys. They also did not try to bill themselves as anything but RTS.

The KEY differential between RTS and 4x is the option of additional VIABLE victory types. A culture victory is the same as a military victory in Sins. I think of culture buildings as planet destroyers. The colony is blown up for god's sake. How is this remotely like culture flipping? Of course, culture is a completely nonviable strategy, but that's besides the point (it can be buffed). There is no culture victory, technology victory, diplomacy victory, etc. And how could there be? There's no diplomacy to speak of, the tier 8 super techs are pretty cheap to research even by RTS standards, and culture doesn't convert anything.

Further, there is significant and game altering micro. For instance, if I played against an average player with maybe 30-40% less forces, I'd still win the battles easily because my unit control is that much better. To not know the hotkeys for your capital ships (with some exceptions) is an invitation to disaster.

Finally, the tech tree. Are you kidding me? Are you seriously telling me this even REMOTELY resembles a 4x tech tree. First and foremost, 90% of the trees are worthless. You can say you have 100 techs per race, but most of them are mirrors, and almost all of them are not worth researching (volcanic specialization, anyone?).

Further, to add insult to injury, the higher tier units are only marginally better than lower tier units, and you shouldn't ever go past tier 5-6 because the tier 8 units (besides RA) are either exceedingly expensive (Novalith), or useless (Insurrection....................).

Let's compare this to a 4x game, like the excellent Galactic Civilizations. How well does 10 tier 1 ships do vs a higher tier ship? They get butchered in seconds. How well does 10 light frigs do vs ANYTHING? Pretty darn well. Teching doesn't FEEL powerful like in 4x games, where you can leverage a tech advantage into a smaller but more dominant fleet. Here, capital ship levels/synergies + fleet composition and most importantly fleet SIZE matter more than tech. A tech 8 vs a tech 5, the tech 5 will win 10/10 times since he didn't waste money getting to tech 8.

So, to firmly disagree with Frogboy's assertion: Sins is not a 4x game, in any way shape or form. If you made RADICAL and enormous changes, it may become a 4x hybrid at some future date. As it is, Sins is STRICTLY a RTS, is played by most players (single and multi) as a RTS, and should be balanced as if it were a RTS.

This is not to detract from the game. I still like it. But I like it as a RTS, and I don't like to delude myself I'm playing some revolutionary hybrid. BTW, this game is very very very similar to Hedgemonia Legions of Iron, and that's billed as a RTS. By similar I mean, if you compared the two, you'd be hard pressed to tell which is which.

If anyone has a valid counterargument, please present it. But, please use detailed and broad knowledge of the RTS/4x gaming industry to make it. I don't want to see posts like:

I don't micro, so it's not a RTS (you don't micro in SC either, that's why you're bad)

I win with culture (you're bad)

I mass trade ports and don't attack (you're bad)

Get it?

Thanks

From reply #63 :



  

« not a 4x game » !

« it's like starcraft » !

 

What a [fill in your own, polite, term] reaction to this thread's OP, composed by a Grand Master of the 4X genre (who also happens to be a StarCraft expert). 

I think it's fair to say that Sins is a hybrid of 4X and RTS games. It's got strong elements of both. I wouldn't however, say that Sins is a real-time 4X game.

Sins has an engaging, tactical depth that is fun to play and isn't burdened with the irritating kinds of micromanaging that most RTS games require.

However, Sins does not have a wide variety of available strategies to play as most 4X games do. A game of Sins is either won or lost on the battlefield. Diplomacy, economy, and culture are tools that one uses to support fleets, but they aren't really separate, alternate ways of winning the game as they are in 4X games like MoO2.

Some specific examples of things that would make it more 4X would be:

Diplomacy: A way to acquire planets/ships/resources/increasingly better trade deals/etc from your enemies by bargaining/threatening them with a tech tree line to pursue this end.

Economy: A way to acquire planets or ships from enemies by becoming such an economic powerhouse that you can buy a planet's or ship's allegiance with a tech tree line to pursue this end.

Culture: A way to acquire planets or ships from enemies by making planets or ships abandon their culture for yours. As culture currently stands, it would need more tweaking and some buffing to make it a truly alternate strategy.

Espionage: A way to steal/sabotage ships and structures and/or infest enemy planets with agent provocateurs that would hurt a planet's allegiance with a tech tree line to pursue this end.

That being said, i think after enough patches or maybe an expansion or two, Sins will acquire more traditional 4X elements to the game and if, for some reason, that doesn't happen, Sins would still be a very engaging tactical space combat game with some 4X elements.

Sorry, I just get a little defensive when someone speaks badly about a game I love so much.

There are posts here about this not being a 4X game because of lack of research and victory options, and I thought I was lost on what 4X is.
I went to my favorite source (wikipedia) and found:

4X refers to a genre of strategy video game with four primary goals: eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate

I wanted to paste the next paragraph explaining each but its long and i didn't want to get into trouble.

It doesn't say anything about how many research options it takes to be a 4X game.

[MAGOG]Kruelgor, post #69 :



Please don't be sorry :

The quote you attacked, in your reply #49, was a nasty & petty caricature.

I don't think this thread is going to go much further down that road until we clearly define what '4X' actually means and why this game fits the bill because frankly, while I don't feel it plays quite like Starcraft, I agree with pretty much everything Hunting just said. If Dawn of War divided damage enhancement research into 15 separate upgrades, would it have a research tree worthy of being called '4X'? Are Rise of Nations/Legends 4X titles because they use culture to influence neighboring territories(or at least a similar border mechanic)? Is any other RTS out there, once turned to a lower speed setting, going to be a 4X title because it's slow?

Again, I'll say that I really enjoy this game but I enjoy it because it brings together a number of RTS concepts and presents them at a pace that I find pleasing. I don't, however, see what it does that separates it into some vague new genre.



The primary goal of this game is to exterminate the opponent(s). At present, that is the 'only' way to win a game. Just like nearly any RTS that involves resource gathering in some fashion, the other X's will help you achieve that goal but in the end, the game is about destroying your opponents.

It's clear to me that what defines an RTS and what defines a 4X game vary by what games a person has played in the past and also (and maybe more importantly) what they expected from Sins before playing and after.

Out of curiosity, I looked up RTS and 4X in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X

Sins certainly fits the RTS genre based on that. And there are some 4X elements in there, but not nearly as in-depth as the other game examples.

Interestingly, there was a quote on the page from the Sins page:

"Sins of a Solar Empire is a "RT4X" game, blending the epic strategy and empire management of the 4x genre with the fast-paced and tactical elements of a real-time strategy title.”

So, at least at some point, they claimed to be a hybrid.

Looking back on the Sins page:

https://www.sinsofasolarempire.com/gameplay.aspx

They list examples of 4X play in the game. Right now RT4X seems like a good classification, as in the future the diplomacy will certainly be improved in 1.1 and the 4X elements are there, just not as extensive as turn-based games.

I still don't understand why SoaSE isn't 4X. You still eXplore new planets, eXpand into said planets, eXploit the resources on planets, black market, and pirates, and eXterminate. The argument is flimsy at best. If you seriously think some one make Galactic Civilizations run real time without it collapsing into anarchy, then your kidding yourself.

If it is, I don't understand why Warcraft, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, and dozens of others aren't 4X titles. Those 4X's are factors of play in each of those games to some degree.