Integrated empire management

well, the game iss what it was designed to be. if I could chose, the thing I'd change or expand most is something like victory conditions and such. it's kind of strange that in game which seeks to bring empire building into rts the end of all means is to build up a huge navy and kill everyone you encounter (or ally, but ...). at least a technology and an economic path to victory could radically change all of that.

but at long last, it surely was a design decision, you have to make comprises. I mean, some people want battles to be more tactical, some want land battles, some want more diplomacy, some want more detailed planet management, some want more empire management and so on ... . I'd say if you'd integrate all of that it would sound cooler than it is, because it lacks focus and gets really tiresome and in the end you have to set game speed so slow because of all the decisions going on at the same time that you might as well be playing a full on tbs, where those time considerations are irrelavent. not to say it's not possible, but that is at least a trap I'd see.

sorry for going so ot. in general, I like what you aim for, but the means you suggest seem a bit odd.

I agree with you Shadowhal but have nothing to disagree with FlyGuy.

When you try to be all things for all people you end of not accomplishing anything or "bogging down" the game in minutia that many players find tedious.  People complain as much about too much of this and that as they do not enough of something. 

I think if certain aspects of the game are increased (improved?) like diplomacy, hopefully many of these new features will continue to be choices for players like pirates or locking teams.  There are different strategies in Sins such as using culture but in the end with all the different maps, it is really designed to deliver exactly what it does. 

A very narrow but deep gaming experience.

The closest thing I can think of to Civ in real time (that's good and fun anyway) would be the Paradox games. Europa Universalis III being an example.  Also good are the older games by the same company, Victoria and Hearts of Iron II.

Of course these aren't really the same as Civ.  The map is not randomly generated and the scope is restricted to a few hundred years of history.

I would agree that SoaSE is not 4x enough.  It's a RTS with light 4x elements.  What I want is a 4x game with real time gameplay.  Enhanced diplomacy and planet management would go a long way I think.

i expect the next micro expansion may deal with this sort of thing (as in after entrenchment). I also agree with above comments that if you start putting these things in we may lose the SINS we know and it may drag every game out to be a looooong affair....well....longer.. 

I didn't wanted to meant that I want a empire management like those TBS games, but more than it is in Sins actually, and so feel more attached to the empire I builted and have more features than just the warfare to deal with and make decisions over. I like Sins, I don't wish it to change completly or else I would just go buy GalCiv. To adapt some more empire management.

I also think it does what it was ment to do well and will achieve more with the expansions to come. I just know already what ships I want, what tech and when a game ends I wish I could go on but having more things to do since I like the game, get involved in more complex gameplay, stronger decisions and feel more close to the empire I formed.  For exemple, its not even necessary to take account of the name of the planets. I try to memorize some for the sake of feeling more attached to the empire sometimes. Planets in sins are just control points, tough I don't see that necessarily has bad.

When it ends, I feel like playing again because I like what is there but it stops me that I'll get almost the same. I think I wanted more unnexpected things to happen and more decisions to take than current. The expansions will add more approaches, tough not about empire/planet admistrating, but thats good, Sins need it,  there is room to take it further.

Again, I like Sins a lot, but I can't say I didn't wanted to take more into my planets (and empire). Also that it had key planets that have a big influence in the galaxy (be it by others work or not), that you can try to take over etc. I think things like it makes each game more unique like felt in GalCiv (something good for any game) and more difference between planets would be nice, has you remember some names and feel more intimate with the game actuall enviroment and have by that some kind of plot.

When playing with a medium number of planets, there is not much difference to planets, just the number of them you hold, aside the ones with relics (and I love that because makes some planets more "key" and feel important (distinguished). I think the planets with relics add a bit of that uniqueness to a certain match, tough small. Same goes for the minerals, after you have a 'so much' few planets, the ones having it more metal or cristal, don't show their weight anymore; this just occurs in the beggning of the game. I like Sins and I like simple gameplay (I find it simple) but I wish it could have more of that. The Phase lines are great, they just "smell" strategy IMO, and actually, Sins just "smell" strategy to me right away, being simple and efficient, very pure on that, but It's also to much reliable only on the Phase lines. More dinstinguishment between the planets could lead to different paths, like wish to attain a planets because it offers certain bonuses instead of the good but almost only motive that is the universal strategic position if not to just have one more. Relics are good but add little to that yet.

Truth be told, since Sins came out, I promptly indentified that what gives me much of the delight I have in it it's the strike crafts. They give moviment to the battles and are very fun to have and collect while the army grows. If it wasn't for it, the game would have little replayability to me. I find the crafts fun, that showed to me how good animation can be important and I find them a great idea, since the capital ships are factories itselves and those crafts are also what gives much of the scope of Sins. But not to exclude everything else like the amazingly remarkably voice over (much especially Advent) and interesting ship designs, phase lines strategy system and many things actually. But it's the strike crafts that gives me replayability (to see them in action) and look for relic planets. The strike crafts have a unique and very important role in Sins, it was one of the smartest creations there for many reasons also with the choice for their functionability, I put it together with the phaseline strategizing and planet distribution in importance and a definition of the game characterists. When I remember Sins I more instantly think of phase lines and strike crafts.

Sins is relying to much only in it's main qualities imho. I'm curious to see where this game goes and if there will be a sequel to it sometime in the future. Much probably will, since like IGN voted on I guess, it's the best new IP in game industry; it's main features, gameplay and designs are original. Not that I'm waiting a sequel, just that it will be nice to occur too. Most expansions, but then especially micro expasions, won't touch some game aspects.

Sorry all those english mistakes.

hm, ok.

well, what I think we would agree on, was a slight improvement, tweaking to planets. I did on post on planet sizes, so that area is something I'd like to go. like, keep the few basic planet patterns, but add parameters that every planet has and that change some area or another. like sizes, or atmosphere or something. I find the bonus system nice, but ... I don't know. I don't so much like it to be discovered first. well, yes, the stuff that is there works fine with the system, but there should be a couple more parameters that vary undiscovered. entrenchment goes a bit there too, showing I believe negative modifiers and core density before colonisation. so, something like that, as I said, for example with size, with atmosphere, land mass, density, whatever. basically, what MoO II did, it was spot on there.

else, well, couldn't read too much concrete out of your post here. I'd say one or two dumped down concepts from tbs could be very nice here. and there are a couple of crossover games that showed it can be done, f.ex. RoN (cities, borders, government, unique resources, gradual improvement and age progression, wonders, non-military victories).