I think I've figured it out....

I think you may be right Tylan. All of the other things change the ballance of the game in complex ways - some haave a slow down aspect others change things that may not need changing. Drastically increasing the price of the Colony ships will drastically slow down the EARLY stages - which is the bit that needs slowing down (in order to develop tech etc as you indicate) but latter on as you get more money, tech (and speed) this will become less of an issue - and by then the secyors of the Galaxy will be colonised by factions of varying sizes - which will depend upon how well those factions developed the infrastructure of their planets in order to build new colony ships. This will aditionally add a really mesmerising early phase where the focus can be on inductrial and commercial growth (which needs pop growth and complimentary technology)

I think this is well worth a test guys?

I think we should reserve judgement on this issue until much later in the Beta. There is still a lot of tuning that must be done, and playing with minor tuning now may be seriously missleading. Let's make sure the code is working correctly first.

Also, slowing down expansion will also slow down tech research and economy. Think about it.

The rate of tech research is based on the number of research points (beakers) all of your planets generate per turn. 5 planets at 3 beakers each is only 15 research points. 20 planets at 3 beakers is 60 research points, which allows completion of a research project in 1/4 the time.

The same is true for economy. The more planets you have the bigger your tax base and the more you have to spend on improvements, ship maintenance, research, diplomacy (destabilisation and espionage), and the more choices you have for good trade routes.

I have applied these principles to CIV, CIV2, and MOO2 very effectively, and have always felt that these games have a tendency to be slow developing. When I tried to apply this principle to CIV3, which is deliberately built to favor small map players and deliberately makes it difficult to establish more than a few cities, I found the game was adversely impacted by its design, making it extremely slow starting and very slow throughout the game. I am still waithing to see if MOO3 made the same mistake. So we already have examples of what slowing down the early part of the game does.

Brad said he wants a game that was fast starting, and so do I. That is one aspect of many in the OS2 game that I loved.

Lets see how it goes.

p.s. I love Civ3. Like you, played the lot right back to the Amiga version of the original Civ that blew my mind.

I dont mind an action packed start, it the balance we are after and whatever it takes to ensure a deep and thoughtful (and lengthy in my preference) game so be it.

Not that I need to say this but when one spends som much time (constructively) criticising a game I would just like to say (again) what a great game in prospect you have here!

I like the way it is now. By the time I find my first civilization I have a equal number of planets so nobody seems to have any advantage.

Slowing down the research and economy was exactly the point.........that's was my idea........but changing the growth would alter the the overall strategy of everyone and so maybe it is an issue wherewith to step lightly around.....anyway there are a lot of bugs to work out.

I will say this however, the early game has to be perfect or Galciv won't have any staying power market-wise. If it overwhelms them by being throwing too much at once, or underwhelms them by being too slow or easy most strategy gamers will quit about 25 turns into it and eventually play a better game. Its trying to find the balance that really suits the majority of strategy players that's the key.

So the pacing of the early game has to be really draw the user in and keep him there or Galciv has no future. I guess I focus way too much on it because of that.

You can always try out increasing the cost by just editing the CoreShips.SHIP file in the Data directory. Just make a backup copy so you can set it back.

that's a good idea.......I'll try it.

The pacing goes better when the cost is about 70....100 is too much.......

Sorry about my overly stated opinion..........I mean, it will all get worked out in the end, and after all we have a bunch of months to do it in.....It really isn't as big a deal as I made it out to be.

"I will say this however, the early game has to be perfect or ...".

Tytan,

I hate to say this, but I hope you are seeing from the comments you are getting that the perfection you are talking about here (the pace of the early part of the game) is in the eye of the beholder. How would you satisfy each and every one of our individual expectations of the game's early pace?

That would probably be impossible.........

So what exactly would the player be doing while they wait for this ship to be built?

In Civilizaiton, for instance, you have a worker and a scout. Scouting can be quite intereting in a land based game but not quite as intereting in space. And there is no worker to..well work with.

The reason colony ships are relatively cheap is because that is the main part of the early phase of the game.

The second phase of the game involves trading and building your star bases to either control resources (Which aren't in yet) or for modifying the attributes of different sectors.

The later phase is then manipulating the minor races and major civilizations into doing what you need them to do to win via whatever strategy you've taken (War, diplomacy, economics, influence).

Yeah, you're right.......I am sorry, my statements were stupid and arrogant. I think I should wait until I produce a game before I make such judgements.

I 100% agree with you Citizen Tytan: your comments were stupid and arrogant.

Cybermage, I trust your comments were in jest. A smily face would help.

Tytan's suggestions are perfectly valid, they just go against Brad's stated objective of having a quick starting game. Stardock have already increased the cost of colony ships based on feedback. Many games (as stated above) do work with very expensive colony ships and work well. It's all about balance and the designer's objectives.

Paul.

Tylans comments were appropriate and I happen to agree with him. So lets be cool.

I happen to think the opening phase is too fast - thats just my view. Why do I think that I reflect? well, because the thing that really blows my trumpet in strategy games is EXPLORATION and establishment.
I dont like to meet the bad guys early, I like to try to outbrain'em (usually fails!).

That's why I always choose huge play areas (galaxies) and low levels of habitable planets. It's just my preference is all.

However, I have to respond on what Brad says above - regarding phase 2 and phase 3, its probably just me but i have yet to truly experience these stages!

After little more than 45mins to an hour (even with my isolationist settings, on default levels of ai agression and intel) I end up in a war not of my making, then its all out the window.

OK I may be doing something wrong and I may need to reduce the opponents ai but I really dont want to, reducing their aggression or expansionist tendencies may be interesting?

Anyway, I always find Tylans comments interesting and keep them coming.

steevo

BTW Brad - what have the human race been doing for the last millenia whilst awaiting intergalactic space flight? developing culture, economics and technology, having wars, raping the planet ........

Yes I know its a space strategy game not Industry Tycoon 3!

If you mean you would like the aliens to have 2 or 3 systems when you find them compared to say you having 25 systems. I am really on your side.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and judgement......I have absolutely no clue whether or not a fast or slow start would have a positive or negative impact.........its all in the manner of presentation. I made an assumption that gaming magazines often make, much to our own irritation....that's what got me.

If the defensive arrangement is so that the star systems can be reasonably protected there is no reason why a fast start cannot work. After all it worked on Warlords II deluxe.

But the star systems themselves will have to have an adequte enough defense that a group of lower class ships can defend a system against a group of larger class ships. The enemy can outproduce and outtech us, so the only option left is a good, layered defense.

I am hoping that the star bases can be orbital and used to prevent entry into the star system itself. But it sounds like they are sector based rather than system based...which means if I run out of ships, they can just go around the star base and take out the system.

Tech - dont un derstand what u mean so cant respond - sorry

Tylan - y should the AI plyers be beefed up to be that better than the human player so we r on the defensive from year dot??

I am probably the one having the problem with winning at this game.........the AI is beating me every time.........

I usually wait until the midgame before I begin any attacks. I rely on defenses and a tech advantage to keep them off my back until I build the internal infrastructure needed to produce what I want. But I am not getting the chance because the enemy is pressing early when my systems cannot really defend themselves.

I guess I should change my style of play....not expect everyone else to adopt mine.

'After little more than 45mins to an hour (even with my isolationist settings, on default levels of ai agression and intel) I end up in a war not of my making, then its all out the window.'

Oddly enough, I have the exact opposite experience. I have never been in a war that I didn't (usually accidentally) start except in the first game I played, and I haven't really done anything differently between then and now.

amanzing

Its the bl**dy Antarians with me - they attack me every time. Additionally The Drengin usually pile in quite quickly.

Do you shange the setting son the AI players Nathan? and what difficulty do you tend to play at? I play on 'comfortable' with default AI settings

One thing I WOULD like to see is, when you're not building anything, the money should revert to the general fund. Unless my eyes deceive me, it now just doesn't go anywhere.

I think being attacked (rather than being the attacker) has to do with your military rating. If you are peace loving and don't build up your military, they attack you. If you are war monging and have the largest military, they leave you be.

DaveO's comment on resources for projects set to "nothing" has been promised in the past, but it obviously has not yet been implemented. Is there any further word?