but is it really? I would propose to you that it isn't. you're options are usually very limited by many factors, in this case nebula or asteroid rings in you're way. I think the highwaytohell system is far more realistic, and besides, its far far far better for gameplay.

I would like to be able to customize the number of planets per star. I just recently played a game where all players started in the same system. I eventually managed to get my ships off to other stars, in hopes of finding unclaimed riches. Instead, I found approx. 5 stars per system. I found this extremely disappointing, because I was expecting the number of stars to be around that of the staring system.

Another thing. So far, it never seems as though the players ever start anywhere except the main starting system. To me, this feels like the Europeans during the conquest of the Americas. I would prefer it if there were an option so that players would start of spread across numerous star systems.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

In the beta the galaxy generator lovingly puts enemies side by side so you start fighting from the very start. They'll probably add more customization later on.

The tutorial is not final. It's just the basics for the beta. The final tutorial will be more expansive and polished.

The z axis movement while it exist it is not fully implemented in the game play yet. I have seen some battles move upwards and downwards (basically to avoid an asteroid), I havnt tried this yet, but is it possible to place structures along the z axis using the tilde key?

I've noticed when jumping a large fleet and not all the ships jump at the same time, that the ships in the 2nd wave, smash into the first wave once arriving at their destination.

Maybe make it that once ships arrive at a planet they at least move inward a bit?

OK .. for the sake of not creating my own separate thread .. this is a post of my first impressions after playing the BETA.

The game was stable and performed well on my system. I'll post the full specs in one of the other threads but in short - I'm running a 2.8 Athlon with 1.2 GB 333mhz memory - a ATI Radeon Pro 9800 and an old Audigy card. Compared to a lot of systems this is old gear but it worked well (albeit with slight crackle in the audio once or twice .. not sure if this is wiring issue though).

The basic mechanics of the game work. I didn't feel like there was a mismatch in the design - in fact I found it very playable and it was easy to forget I was in Beta. You can tell when a game has got 'it' because you go to bed thinking about it (strategy etc) and when you wake up, you make excuses to your wife why you need to spend some time alone on the pc

I've enjoyed working the diplomacy to try and help play the opposition off one another.

I've also had great fun working out strategies for cutting off enemies, blocking trade routes, pinning them back / controlling the centre etc. The game has this in the bag for me.

There are a few things I wish were slightly different though (they may well be planned but here they are anyway) -

I felt that the diplomacy was just a little bit simple and that the arrangements between nations were just a bit too fleeting. I never really felt that any of them felt a genuine desire to become allied or that you could really establish a common goal (i.e. let's form an alliance in order to eliminate a common enemy and weaken other races). Not enough depth - not enough control. The reason I think this is important as that, when the reviews come in, I believe there will be criticism for not advancing the genre - and perhaps for coming in behind games that are over a decade old now (MOO 2 for example). It may never have been your intention - but I think there will be parallels drawn regardless.

Also, the graphics are good - but a bit wasted. In the same way Homeworld was - because for all the beauty of the detail - you never get to appreciate it. More often than not the game is reduced to 'icon' view. The game plays at a very fast pace over a wide scale and it's almost always necessary to pull back on the map to see what is going on around you. That's a shame because you lose the sense that you're part of something big. You may as well be watching ants fight. This also has the effect of de-valuing the research tree for the ships / tech because you never get to see the benefits of your advancement.

Lastly - and for me most important - the game plays too fast (for my play style anyway). I like to sit there and survey my empire - plan my defences, arrange my fleets, plot the downfall of my enemies in great detail (with staged advances towards their demise). Instead, I'm left bemused - feeling like I'm playing against the clock, worrying that I'm not researching anything at the moment and clicking anything in the research tree just because I know that the AI will have selected something and be far in advance of me because I took my eye off the ball for a second. Scrabbling all my fleet together in one noose and sending them headlong in to a furball in the next system asap because I need to respond quickly .. rather than having time to select a task force and make a measured response etc.. I think you get the picture.

This last point is probably just me - but it's where I feel that turn based strategy has the edge currently. Strategy, like chess - having the time to draw your plans and execute them. I get the feeling that if I could half the speed of the game then I would have much more fun planning how to conquer the universe - I would enjoy watching the battles more and have time to look at the detail - I wouldn't feel so rushed when picking items from the research trees and could appreciate the benefits of the research elements more. Half the speed for everything - or give people the option to vary the speed, including slowcoach mode for those of us with neural pathways like the M25 on a Friday afternoon.

Well .. just some thoughts. I hope they help. Peace - no flames.

Dan


[Reposted to this sticky]

Ok, I don't knwo what you guys think, but to me the AI is ridiculous. This happens for all games, but is there any way to make the AI NOT CHEAT! I know that if the AI doesn't cheat then you have to program the AI to things tediously. But honestly, an intelligent AI is going to go farther in the long run than a AI that cheats.

What it does is make the game impossible to play unless you can outmanuever the AI in an ungodly fashion. It is silly, I was playing low resources, 4 star, 100 planet game with 10 enemies. I also intentionally placed it on hard.

I expanded like i usually do, building up defenses to fend off the large hordes that will be bearing down on me shortly. But hwat it turned into is I land-locked 3 AI's, and they each only had their homeworlds left. I couldn't kill these 3 AI's, Why? Because They had an unending stream of ships that I can't get rid of, because they seem to have resources that they don't have! And they also build them like 40% faster than I can.

I don't know what your guys stance is on this, but it is silly. Please come up with a better method for the full game other than blatant cheating. An intelligent AI is years better than a cheating one, IMHO.

I just played a 'last flagship standing' game. the AI was HORRIBLE. I was able to kill off 2 AI players immediatly by having a fleet of 6 scouts and my flagship. first kill was the AI sent his flagship scouting into my home planet, my fleet concentrates fire on the flagship, and instead of running away, he just runs DEEPER into my gravwell. the second was when an enemy used their flagship in an attack fleet, just focus fire and bye bye to him too. most others were killed by the other a.i. in probably the same manner. The last fight was easiest, i had a fleet of 3 cap ships (none of them were flag) into his star, attacked a colony, when he responded with all he had, i just singled out the Kol flagship and blew it appart.

My suggestions, 1. randomize the flagship type for each player.
2. DON'T display the fact that it is a flagship to the enemy player's description. OR make the flagship hella tough compared to most cap ships.
3. improve the AI in this game mode to not use flagships in such a foolish manner.

any other suggestions are welcome. opinions welcome positive or negative.

Maybe the upgrade should possibly take awhile though too, I know I'd designate a new flagship immediately if I lost one, so keep it from being abused.

Maybe ships should take longer to build AND cost more. SoaSE beta so far reminds me too much of the endless hordes offered by the average Real Time Strategy Games. Losing entire fleets should actually represent a serious setback in the game. As it is, I can lose a ton of ships and come back with a full fleet in a couple of minutes (as can the AI).

The cheap and quick to make endless horde concept also forces the game to drag on too much.

Also, it would be nice if there were some capital ships that weren't also carriers. They could get a bit more firepower/armor/shields. And it would also be nice to have pure carriers, that would carry maybe 5 or so squadrons, but have crap armor/shields/weapons. As it is, the capital ships all feel the same.

I personally thinking the Marza dreadnought and the Kol Battleship should LOSE the squadrons. they are war fighters, and their size notations have been notorious for not having a fighter compliment.

I'm gonna stop playing until the AI gets fixed. It's just too frustrating trying to juggle everything on all my planets and then have two or three enemy empires send dozens of frigates each to eat me alive. I've tried everything I can think of to defend against this, and I just can't. So I won't.