Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby lordookie » September 22nd, 2015, 9:53 pm

Hello, is anyone up for a game of GE?
If at first you don't succeed, blow something up. It won't necessarily help you succeed, but it will be fun.
User avatar
lordookie
 
Posts: 4
Joined: August 23rd, 2015, 8:58 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby Computer_Player » September 25th, 2015, 7:41 am

Am always up for GE, except when I don't have the time.
Computer_Player
 
Posts: 74
Joined: March 16th, 2008, 6:39 am

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby lordookie » October 13th, 2015, 10:05 pm

What if you made the planets on the maps larger, and made ground vehicles, for a more all out war kinda feel, because right now there are 18 tiles on a big planet, and alien races have more than spaceships and infantry after all. I might just be beating a dead horse right now, because I know there's an old topic on more vehicles for galactic empires that died a while ago.
If at first you don't succeed, blow something up. It won't necessarily help you succeed, but it will be fun.
User avatar
lordookie
 
Posts: 4
Joined: August 23rd, 2015, 8:58 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby sunstar89 » December 21st, 2015, 5:52 pm

anyone still playing? this i would to get in a few games contact me if interested
sunstar89
 
Posts: 1
Joined: December 21st, 2015, 5:50 pm

Glitch with Galactic Empires 2.9.4

Postby Can-ned_Food » February 28th, 2017, 11:46 am

I don't know how many people noticed this, but there is a conflict with a few of the terrain definitions.

The small glitch makes it so that Mm^Xm is unavailable on the standard map editor palette. This change will repair that.
Apply this patch to Galactic_Empires/terrain/terrain.cfg
Code: Select all
81c81
<    id=cloud
---
>    id=cloudstar
91c91
<    id=cloud
---
>    id=cloudstar
102c102
<    id=cloud
---
>    id=cloudstar

interesting, because i thought it was not possible to do such a thing.

P.S. Oops; pardon me for the double post.
Can-ned_Food
 
Posts: 74
Joined: December 17th, 2015, 10:27 pm

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby Computer_Player » November 13th, 2017, 4:04 am

I've been obsing a game today (in fact, as I write these words-- yes people play this still!! :D), and there was this short exchange:

Me: hi
Me: GE is awesome :D
P1: Howdy
P1: It's good, but it takes a long time.


I recommended trying out the tiny 3p map even with 2p which might provide for shorter play (haven't tried this before tho). But the fact is, GE longness is the single greatest weakness of the era as evident from the fact that it was literally one half (and the only negative part) of his one line description of GE.

Thinking about this some more I came up with a list on how to shorten GE gameplay, listing in descending order of practicality without regard for proportional effectiveness i.e. starting with what the general player can do moving towards tasks that require more, such as skills in coding or dev cooperation.

1) Starting settings - this doesn't require any change, merely up tech level / gold / timer such that they encourage faster gameplay. However this doesn't affect gameplay speed much. I don't have solid recommendation right now, so some experimentation could be done.
2) Skills - well, ofcourse the greater the skill gap, the faster games are. But I'm also talking about battlefield awareness such that players can notice when a game is already in a winnable state. That is, going for HQ instead of being bogged down unnecessarily destroying enemy units / planets. The flipside is knowing when to surrender/ accept surrender. Ofcourse this is without prejudice to the fun factor, if you both are having fun, have at it!
3) Faster maps. - this doesn't necessarily mean smaller maps, although map size is a factor. General attributes that make default era maps faster should apply as well with GE maps. This level already requires some WML coding since GE maps require some of that to be functional, but is the most promising one in terms of doability. We need more GE maps anyway (and current ones need a bit more balancing)
4) Win conditions - Currently the only win condition is a military one, analogous to default gameplay of "killing the leader". In this case, killing the HQ/Homeplanet. Perhaps we can take our cue from Master of Orion, the original inspiration of GE (and also from the Civilization games) by having alternate win conditions aside from the military one of destroying all enemies. Suggestions would be:
- Science Victory: Have a Tech level 5 research (Build Wormhole Generator- integrate sector to interstellar space network) with say 400 research points.
- Economic Victory: Have 1500 gold (or something) - Hire the Golden Space Mercenary Co.
- Colonization Victory: Succeed in colonizing / destroying a superplanet - Ofcourse this planet/HQ will have different stats than the usual, but depending on how fast you want the game to go it could be variable.
-Military Victory: Destroy all hostile HQs. - the classic.
etc.
5) Tech revamp - Update of tech skill tree to make "rush" strategies more viable. Dwarf planet destruction is already fast and strong so there's no need to change that particular one, but say alternate rush strategies such as Invasion focused ones could perhaps be made stronger (i.e moving some planet side unit tech on the economic tech tree so you don't necessarily have to go all-in and sacrifice all economy in exchange for invasion strat). This would also diversify research from the Gospel of Nanotech.
6) Micro ais - ability to delegate tasks to micro-ais, one way is a micro ai that optimizes worker placement based on desired focus (either galaxy wide or per planet). So say you want to optimize planet placement for food? Right click on HQ and it will auto move units accordingly. This is pretty massive though, but if it is doable, then it would also be a major milestone towards making an ai for this era.

any other suggestions? 1 - 3 we can do, but starting with 4 would at least require dev acknowledgement of work done. What settings have worked fastest for you guys? I like to play from Tech level 0 so I haven't really tried most other settings. I imagine turning on artifacts and removing aliens will move games faster in some maps.

P.S. I've attached a "test game" for alternate settings. This was Kipples 1st game so this isn't full game, but I think it shows progression enough.
Settings: 150 g, Large (3 planets), Thriving (artifact + aliens), Tech level 1.
Attachments
GE_Beta_Quadrant_Quick_GE_Test_1.gz
(51.8 KiB) Downloaded 7 times
Computer_Player
 
Posts: 74
Joined: March 16th, 2008, 6:39 am

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby Kipples » November 15th, 2017, 2:52 am

I have fixed some bugs in this add-on and threw them up on github here https://github.com/Kipples/Galactic_Empires
included the patch from Can-ned_Food
fixed the player flag icons getting changed for non GE games
fixed the food processor not working
added Generous' patch
Kipples
 
Posts: 6
Joined: February 21st, 2013, 4:57 pm

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby Computer_Player » November 15th, 2017, 8:56 am

Thanks for the patch Kipples.

There is also the problem with FFa games (presumably also 2 v 2 games) where killing one enemy HQ = automatic win for the side. The last big bug I think.

You mentioned balancing maps. The following are my suggestions:
alpha quadrant
Delphi move to 23,23
Nymi move to 29,20
Mantir move to 27, 30
Satu move to 21, 33

Big problem is P1 has big advantage and can monopolize warp artifacts on Delphi and Mantir. Moving those as well as the center planets, should be enough to balance it up.

beta quadrant

Starcloud on
26,27 / 27,27 / 23,26 / 24, 25
Ion Storm on
25,27 / 25, 26

This is pretty balanced as it is I think. However there is some problem when p1 rushes to get control of the center starcloud, p2 has hard time contesting it and their best bet is to go alternate right from the get go. In order to balance this, having more terrain to attack starcloud from (and making mallus terrain in the center to discourage camping) I think is more than enough.

Others
Similar changes on the 2 v 2 maps which are derived from these maps.

Ideally planet side terrain would be mirrored based on side instead of uniform, especially with regards artifact / alien placement. Same with free transporter placement. But as long as the planets themselves are placed fairly, then it's not too big of a problem.

Haven't played the other big maps enough for opinions.
Computer_Player
 
Posts: 74
Joined: March 16th, 2008, 6:39 am

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby Kipples » November 15th, 2017, 11:27 am

I believe I have fixed the FFA bug, now when you capture enemy homeworld hq it will not be a leader hq anymore so you don't get an extra homeworld hq. the game should also appropriately end when there is only 1 homeworld hq left that hasn't been captured.

not sure who the game will give the victory dialog box to I suspect its everyone? (hard to test on your own) so if some people can find that out for me that would be helpful.

I have made those suggested balance changes as seperate scenarios so they can be tested.
Kipples
 
Posts: 6
Joined: February 21st, 2013, 4:57 pm

Re: Galactic Empires vs FreeOrion?

Postby Can-ned_Food » Yesterday, 1:01 am

So, what are your thoughts on the FreeOrion project? Do you guys think that the Wesnoth engine, or something similar, could better support the 4X theme than one which is more MoO–esque? (Leastways the combat and interstellar transit aspects.)
Can-ned_Food
 
Posts: 74
Joined: December 17th, 2015, 10:27 pm

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby Computer_Player » Yesterday, 12:27 pm

In point of fact, I've tried MoO before.. it is quite enjoyable indeed (the outdated graphics not withstanding). Definitely it favors tech/economy and Eve-style "spreadsheet management". Not a bad thing if you enjoy these types of games. However one thing in common in these types of games is that combat is more in the Strategic / Operation Level compared to the Tactical level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_level_of_war.

GE (or wesnoth style so to speak) brings more emphasis to Tactics compared to most 4X games, and I feel excels in that compared to a typical 4X battle where the result is foregone before you join battle with the enemy. Tactics level provides a more pinpoint turning of tables and a more immediate control/playstyle when in comes to battles.

Ofcourse compared to normal wesnoth play, GE (or Conquest, and to an even more extreme, New Settlers ) strays more to the higher levels of warfare that normal seldom needs to reach, especially in Multiplayer. However out of all of them, I feel that GE provides the best balance between the different levels. Not that it is in state that it does't need improvements. The current state of GE empire development encourages the following progression focus (in general terms), depending on stage of the game:

Early Game
1) Exploration
2) Military
3) Economy
4) Technology

Mid Game
1) Economy
2) Technology
3) Military
4) Exploration

Late Game

1) Economy
2) Military
3) Technology
4) Exploration

You can see that "Military" quickly drops the later the stage of the game, favoring economic and technology fundamentals later on. However, all others of the same "genre" drop Military even quicker or, in the case of Settlers, never really jumps to top spot. Now some feel that GE even now de-emphasizes Military aspect too much. One way to address this is to prolong "Early Game" (very big maps), or by reducing the effect of "Economy aspect" by the map setup (i.e. smaller planet sizes / more arid planet terrain / smaller maps) so that other aspects can have more focus. Maybe it would even be possible for Tech to be top with heavy use of artifacts on many small planets (which in turn would increase Military aspect relevance).

This model strays a bit from 4X (i.e. eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate) having mostly discussed the "battle" aspect of play. Consider that currently, GE does not have any convenient way to have a bird's eye view of your empire, nor diplomacy interface (something basic in non-wesnoth style 4X or Grvnd Strategy games) although probably doable with labels/ counters per side in an area outside the space map (ala some survivals). One more positive aspect is that it combines combat / exploration / exploitation seamlessly without requiring a hybrid style of play (i.e. separate battle space vs the management view which if I'm not mistaken was the plan for Free Orion)

I hope I answered your question with my meandering answer XD In short, yes wesnoth style can work, and there are pros to it.

On a related note:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/0 ... ix-the-4x/
Computer_Player
 
Posts: 74
Joined: March 16th, 2008, 6:39 am

Re: Galactic Empires (MP Sci-fi Scenario)

Postby Computer_Player » Today, 2:07 am

I forgot to post this, but this is Replay of Modified Beta map.
Attachments
GE_Beta_Quadrant_Bal..._replay_vs_Kipples.gz
(86.58 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Computer_Player
 
Posts: 74
Joined: March 16th, 2008, 6:39 am

Previous

Return to Multiplayer Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests