Parsek

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent

Parsek
by ac is people on Monday 07/Apr/2008, @09:57

Parsek sounds great.

Konquest is fun for a game or two but it's just too simplistic. I don't expect anything to rival the complexity of Galactic Civilizations II or Master of Orion III (which is actually a pretty good game with current fan patches and mods. Too bad it was a buggy, unplayable monster at release) but a 4X game with a bit more depth would be a great addition for KDE Games. :)

Related Links

·   Articles on Developer
·   Also by ac is people
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Parsek
by Jure Repinc on Monday 07/Apr/2008, @12:36

I'm glad you like the idea of Parsek. I also don't plan it will be as complex as GalCiv2 aor MOO3, especially not when it comes to graphics. For now I plan it will just stay a nice 2D client. But there is nothing that prevents the games as complex as Stars!. If you have examine Thousand Parsec a bit you can see it is basically just some protocol made especially for space 4X games. So you can create a ruleset (the actual game rules) as complex (or as simple) as the protocol allows (or will allow in future version). So there should be no problem creating a ruleset similar to Konquest, GalCiv2 or MOO3 or Stars! or any other 4X game. Then I just have to worry to represent all the objects and orders and other stuff from the ruleset properly in the client.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Parsek
by ac is people on Tuesday 08/Apr/2008, @18:18

A good strategy game should force the player to decide between a number of trade-offs. If some feature doesn't add trade-offs it doesn't add to depth, it just makes the game more complicated.
Bad example: Weapons in MoO2/3. There was almost always one optimal choice and 20 progressively worse alternatives. Give each type of weapon one niche at which it excels
Good example: Weapons/Shields vs. Stealth/Scanners in MoO3. Normally scanners and cloaks aren't that important but in MoO3 you could easily end up in situations where one side was unable to detect the other and couldn't even fire back.
How they screwed up anyway: The research system meant that normally one side was better in both weapons/shields and stealth/scanners. You had to be careful in fleet composition but a lot of potential was wasted.

In a 4X game the major elements should be
- colonization vs. planetary improvement (i.e. no colony-rush at the beginning of the game where you try to colonize as much as possible and the player who gets the most planets wins. Colonies should be money sinks for some time before becoming profitable and there should be plenty of planetary improvements at the lower tech-levels that can grow your economy just as much)

- tech vs. quantity - kinda related to the first item but in general you should be able to compensate for lack of size by better tech. This means specifically that tech development shouldn't be a linear function of the amount of money you spend. You should be able to make a few choices (perhaps cultural, like the domestic policy sliders in Europa Universalis) a big empire wouldn't wanna make (e.g. less oppressive regime) that compensate for lack of size and even without those there should be diminishing returns on tech spending.

- diplomacy - AI that honors treaties and allies that actually help you in a war

- espionage - You should be able to spend money on establishing a whole organisation in other empires instead of just sending a few assassins. The better your organisation the more you learn about the empire. At the highest level you can see as much information about the other empire as its player. GalCivII had a system like that and it makes espionage actually useful, not to mention much more realistic.

None of this requires much complexity or micromanagement. A Europa Universalis in Space would be nice. =)
I'm gonna have a look at TP rulesets and how much flexibility they provide.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"KDE is much too well-structured for this world..." -- Rob Buis
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.