| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Therlun
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 137
Location: Germany
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:41 am Post subject: Winning Streak |
|
|
hiho
what always bothers me with strategy games is that the human player cant be defeated, and STILL have fun.
you may lose a war every now and then, but when you reach a point where you are totally outmachted you stop playing, because you know the AI will just anhilate you.
every game you win as a human player is mostly a streak of smaller and larger wins.
in some very old post i read that if you lose your homeworld, you lose the game.
I find that very odd considering that Horizon is said to have non-equal starting circumstances for all the races.
I always hoped for a system where you can lose, and still play on.
a system were a far superior race subject the humans, who then have to endure an ara of indignity and a life as battle thralls.
some day their overlord race might face an equal enemy, and the right time to rebell could be there.
or the former slaves might develop a technology that gives them the ability to free themselves.
or the races could live together for such a long time that the slave-master relationships vanishes, and a new symbiotic relationship develops...
this could also work the other way around. (the player using defeated AIs)
a race should not just "dissapear". not only should it be extremly difficult and slur on your reputation to destroy them, it should also be much more useful to only subdue a race and use it for your aims.
do you think it could be possible to create a game where it is fun to play a defeated empire?
all the strategy games only rely on a "kohr-ah" model...
no game gives you the choice to play either side of the "Kzer-Za Ur-Quan" question...
shield or battle thrall?!
(if you played Star Control 2 I hope you know what i mean. if you didnt play it... you should do so!  ) |
|
| Back to top » |
|
 |
ForesterSOF
Vanguard
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 34
Location: Borg occupied Terra
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunatly they may not have an AI that could handel it.
To bypass this they could put a check box for allowing diplomatic subjugacation when all players are human.
_________________
You have two choices in life; Explore and Learn, or Vegetate |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Therlun
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 137
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
afaik there is no MP in Horizon...  |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 350
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In Horizon losing your homeworld is very difficult. If there are 6+ billion people, any attempt by enemy invasion forces will be suicide for them. Of course an enemy empire may chose to just annhiliate you from orbit if powerful enough until you capitulate or are exterminated.
Past 4x games are unrealistic in how invasions are setup. A colony of 1 million doesn't compare to 6billion+. You can't use the same tactics and drop 100,000 troops and hope to win.
So let's assume that they won't exterminate you (unlike the kohr-ah or minbari model) they will want to enslave you or 'ally' with you after you capitulate (ur-quan model).
And let's assume you do capitulate after x amount of turns but have a few major colonies that can build ships, it would be possible with some help to free homeworld perhaps with some help from another civilization. Or in the absence of your own forces/colonies if another race were to attack and free homeworld you may get a second chance.
Currently as long as you don't surrender and homeworld isn't totally destroyed you don't 'lose' and you can build a capital on another colony if you have one until homeworld is free.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Jambi
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 25
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zaimat wrote: |
| Currently as long as you don't surrender and homeworld isn't totally destroyed you don't 'lose' and you can build a capital on another colony if you have one until homeworld is free. |
How long will an enemy allow your homeworld to not be "completely destroyed?" I suppose I'll have to wait for the game but what is the likelyhood of a player being allowed to exist after such devestation? |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 350
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Depends on how much they hate you, their capability (weapons), their relations with other races and yours.
Horizon turns work like this, each turn is 20 rounds (subject to change) then the game is paused and you make strategic decisions. New turn begins, the game or combat etc continue exactly where it was paused.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Therlun
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 137
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zaimat wrote: |
Depends on how much they hate you, their capability (weapons), their relations with other races and yours.
Horizon turns work like this, each turn is 20 rounds (subject to change) then the game is paused and you make strategic decisions. New turn begins, the game or combat etc continue exactly where it was paused. |
I dont get it...
Whats the difference between rounds and turns?
Are there different "classes" of rounds?
Can you make some decisions only at changing turns? |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 350
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Each turn is divided into 20 rounds. All objects (ships etc) in the game get an initiative every round to perform their action. After 20 rounds the game is paused and a summary of events is displayed and the player makes empire decisions, diplomacy etc.
It is possible to pause the game at any moment (between initiatives. We will disable this for the release version though unless there is good reason for it) and make changes it really does not matter to the game engine but rather for players it gives a structure and direction to follow, so they focus on both tactical and strategic parts without getting confused. It also adds to the combat flow of the game to focus on one aspect for 20 rounds, get a feel for what is needed before making new decisions.
_________________
Horizon - Lead Designer |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Jambi
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 25
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zaimat wrote: |
Depends on how much they hate you, their capability (weapons), their relations with other races and yours.
Horizon turns work like this, each turn is 20 rounds (subject to change) then the game is paused and you make strategic decisions. New turn begins, the game or combat etc continue exactly where it was paused. |
Okay that makes more sense when viewed with your original post. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Sim-Mania
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you are entangled in a war, how much assistance can you expect from your allies.
Because unless there is away to co-ordinate defences between allies (i.e. your AI allies), then the stronger will always triumph over the weaker, or the smaller. Since in other games, superior numbers always defeats technology.
Regarding what Zaimat said, if you defeat someone until they surrender or capitulate, how does that work in the game.
Does Horizon provide some facility that ensures even though the surrendered race may still have some independence, they have to follow every decision you make for them (eg. going to war or help in defence). Or do you get economic, research, or production bonuses from their planets. Or do you simply take full control over their colonies, even those you have not conquered yet? |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Therlun
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 137
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sim-Mania wrote: |
superior numbers always defeats technology.
|
I dont know hoe you can come to such a conclusion.
Neither with games like my bloved MoO1 nor with games like Starcraft, Warcraft 3 or Civilization this comes true.
IMO it is most often the other way around and you are forced to go for a technological advantage, because superior numbers alone are worthless...
I have yet to play a game where both sides a equally balanced.
(MoO1 has a heavy tech overweigth) |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Sim-Mania
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Neither with games like my bloved MoO1 nor with games like Starcraft, Warcraft 3 or Civilization this comes true.
|
What I meant was more playing styles, and when opponents are vastly out matched. In games like Civ3 and Moo3 when the computer or a human player emphasises research (technology) and sacrifices military strength and continual expansion of the empire through war and dominance, no matter how far more advanced you are, if your opponent has a vastly greater empire than you because they focused on military dominance and war mongering, than they can launch swarms after swarms of lesser armies technologically, and eventually they will wear you out because they have the larger resources and can replenish their armies more quickly.
Simple example, Civ3, an empire of 30 cities with 300 knights will inevitably defeat an empire of 15 cities with only 100 cavalry.
Moo3 was similar. If you had larger ships and more advanced weapons, but say the far larger Cynoids empire, although being less advanced than you, had an army out that out numbered you 4 to 1, you stood no chance. They would eventually wear down your defences. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
JosEPh
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 40
Location: Western IL Cornfields.....
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree about Civ, but the Moo3 scenario is not exactly true. If you have better tech but are outnumbered 4 to 1 it will depend upon Galaxy placemant and Diplo relations (how many full alliances you have and can you get your allies into the fight). If your empire borders the Cynoids you do have Big problems. But if they have to come thru another empire to get to yours you have a chance by setting up Choke points. Don't care if they have 2000 ships and you have 500 since only 180 (default 1.2.5) per side can fight at that star that is the chokepoint. You'll need to have backup at the starlanes behind that choke system cause next turn the Cynoid will have a full 180 TF on the other side if you don't. And as long as you keep him bottled you can build superior ships/TFs to whittle him down. I know cause I've done just this very thing. Moo3's *terrain* features help with this, Starlanes, blackholes and neutronstars, with the last 2 acting as impassable *terrain* brinings in a bit more strategy than Rush tactics.
Now overall you can get defeated by the scenario presented. But IMO MoO3 is a bit more balanced than that now.
Just my 2 cents.
Oh and I'm still waiting zaimat. 
JosEPh |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Warcaster
Explorer
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What I meant was more playing styles, and when opponents are vastly out matched. In games like Civ3 and Moo3 when the computer or a human player emphasises research (technology) and sacrifices military strength and continual expansion of the empire through war and dominance, no matter how far more advanced you are, if your opponent has a vastly greater empire than you because they focused on military dominance and war mongering, than they can launch swarms after swarms of lesser armies technologically, and eventually they will wear you out because they have the larger resources and can replenish their armies more quickly. |
this is as it should be, if you are vastly superior to the enemy then it doesnt matter how much they throw at you because your superior forces should suffer no loses that need replacing, even if its 10-1. however if your more advanced than them but not so much as to not suffer casualties then it stands to reason that if your a smaller empire you will not be able to replenish those loses as fast as the larger enemy.
a perfect example of this is the wraith in stargate atlantis. the ancients were far more advanced than the wraith but not so much that they could not suffer loses. the wraith vastly outnumbered the ancients and so forced them back until only atlantis stood. as the story goes at that point the ancients began to win every battle around atlantis but because the wraith could always replace their loses the ancients could see no way to win the war.
i see no reason why this means superior numbers outway tech. if your truely that much more advanced then it wont matter how much your opponent throws at you, you can just sit there and smile. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
RobHuntingdon
Vanguard
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 146
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sim-Mania wrote: |
| Quote: |
Neither with games like my bloved MoO1 nor with games like Starcraft, Warcraft 3 or Civilization this comes true.
|
What I meant was more playing styles, and when opponents are vastly out matched. In games like Civ3 and Moo3 when the computer or a human player emphasises research (technology) and sacrifices military strength and continual expansion of the empire through war and dominance, no matter how far more advanced you are, if your opponent has a vastly greater empire than you because they focused on military dominance and war mongering, than they can launch swarms after swarms of lesser armies technologically, and eventually they will wear you out because they have the larger resources and can replenish their armies more quickly. |
I love Firaxis and Sid -- they are great designers and programmers and all that -- but I detest Civ 3/4. And this is one of those reasons. If you have tanks and he has warriors you should always win... and you won't. Which is absolutely rediculous IMO.
However, I won't put all the blame on the designer. Sometimes the problem is the strategy. Often -- not always, but often -- the best defense is a good offense. Because of the way most AIs work, we often have to play somewhat defensively. But that doesn't mean you can't mix the two. If you don't have the strength to withstand an indefinate defensive war, go on the offense and take away his ability to attack you. Don't waste your time trying to control his stuff, just bomb it back to the stone age and move on to the next target. Oh you might lose a few colonies too, but if you have the right tech advantage you can make it where his losses are a lot more painful than yours. I know it *can* work... I've done it at times in SE IV.
RH
_________________
Robert, the Earl of Huntingdon
Tarry here, my merry men, whilst I seek what adventure await in yonder greenwood; but look thou listen for my call, for I will blow my horn if I become hard-pressed.
Adapted from Sterling, pg. 45 |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
|
