Star General

[macattack]

I've dealt with some pretty unreliable and almost slimy on-line gameshops and I agree that Slitherine may have an issue here and there, but they certainly do everything they can so you can enjoy your purchase. And if they charge $50 for their product, if the quality merits that, then that's what they deserve.

I'd love to see them go through the entire 5-star series of PC, Allied Corps, Fantasy Corps, Star Corps and Pacific Corps. Even a stab at the monstrous War in the Pacific would be cool.

I do have one question/whiney request... is there a time-line on the Mac release? I do understand that it will take time to hammer out the code and debug it, so I'm not looking for an actual release date. But maybe just a time-line? And outside date? Christmas perhaps?

[Molve]

I'd love to see them go through the entire 5-star series of ... Star Corps ...

viewtopic.php?t=27760

I do have one question/whiney request... is there a time-line on the Mac release? I do understand that it will take time to hammer out the code and debug it, so I'm not looking for an actual release date. But maybe just a time-line? And outside date? Christmas perhaps?

viewtopic.php?t=26502 (based on that thread, my guess is that for a December release, you'd have to wait until 2012)

[macattack]

Thanks Molve,

I agree that the simple "bigger and better" mentality was a major flaw in the Star General game. In fact, it fed the memory leak problem that made the game unplayable. But I did enjoy the diversity of the different races not only in their space forces but their land forces as well. And I enjoyed the land game of capturing planets to expand your space empire. The space aspect added a separate concern from the standard land-grab game.

What they could do is apply your core unit theory to Star General with a hint of Sliterine's Dominions for diversity of troops. Instead of the Star General idea of a map with 100 planets, which is a memory leak just waiting to happen, spread the 100 planets through a campaign of 15 or 20 scenarios. You could have your space core units and your land core units, and carry them through the campaign. You could even have the campaign ping-pong back and forth between scenarios depending on how well you do. Additional campaign modules would be easy to add for new planets and races depending on which way you branch out into space. Just a thought.

And I do know about boot-camp. But Windows products on my Mac makes my hair stand. I have several "Windows for Mac" applications on my Mac for work, and out all the programs on my Mac, the one's that consistently malfunction are the Windows programs.

I'll wait for Mac. But thank you for your link because it looks like Christmas of 2012 may be more realistic.

[Molve]

I agree that the simple "bigger and better" mentality was a major flaw in the Star General game. In fact, it fed the memory leak problem that made the game unplayable.

As far as I remember, the too-simplistic unit mix / gameplay itself made the game unplayable. In fact, since I don't have any recollection of any memory leak issues I guess I simply lost interest completely before they appeared.

But I did enjoy the diversity of the different races not only in their space forces but their land forces as well. And I enjoyed the land game of capturing planets to expand your space empire. The space aspect added a separate concern from the standard land-grab game.

If that is meant to say you enjoy accessible turn-based tactical games in space then I'm all with you! There are definitely too few of those.

Of course a Space Corps game should retain asymmetrical forces. After all, that's the core of perhaps 90% of PC discussions here on the forum...

But as long as Slitherine only attempts a direct port they're wasting their time, to be frank. It is absolutely essential they first decide on an analogy to the rock-paper-scissors aspect that makes all Panzer General games so much fun.

the Star General idea of a map with 100 planets, which is a memory leak just waiting to happen

As I said I can't remember any leaks or crashes. But I do think you're obsessing a bit here.

After all, 100 planets is nothing for our modern computers. Just look at the Civilization series for complex and big maps.

Instead the solution is "hire competent programmers" There really is no excuse for memory leaks, and game design should definitely not limit itself just to anticipate sloppy coding...

And I do know about boot-camp. But Windows products on my Mac makes my hair stand.

I'm afraid I can't understand this sentiment. Once you have Panzer Corps up and running, there should be very little to remind you you're on Windows. You're in Belorussia and it's 1942 and that is all that matters!

I'll wait for Mac.

Are you sure? After all, any plans for a native OS X application is just talk at this point. It might even never happen *shrug*.

[macattack]

As far as I remember, the too-simplistic unit mix / gameplay itself made the game unplayable. In fact, since I don't have any recollection of any memory leak issues I guess I simply lost interest completely before they appeared.

You are correct. You didn't play Star General long enough to see the leak. 100 planets shouldn't have been a problem for computers at that time, yet the problem existed. And I agree that it was a matter of poor programming. Playing the game for any length of time required scaling down the number of planets to a point where the game could not grow out of its programming.

But as long as Slitherine only attempts a direct port they're wasting their time, to be frank. It is absolutely essential they first decide on an analogy to the rock-paper-scissors aspect that makes all Panzer General games so much fun.

A direct port of Star General would be the last thing I would want Slitherine to do. There are already enough real time space games where the formula of max research + max production + max expansion = game win. Star General was a turn-based version of that theme which is probably why you didn't care for it. I'm not saying that that game design is a bad one, but I too prefer the rock, paper, scissors.

And I still think a port has already been designed by Slitherine in PC. PC has 100 target cities across Europe and Asia. But you don't see these all at once. They are spread out over 20 scenarios and what you see of them is decided by your level of success in each scenario. That way your core of units and the number of units you face is carefully managed by game design to maintain your rock, paper, scissors.

The same thing can be done in space. 100 target planets spread across 20 scenarios. You have a space core and a ground core. Different advances in your equipment and technology can be secured (and lost) by which planets you are able to conquer. (This can also be designed for replayability. Suppose you are only given enough time and resources to conquer 2 planets out of 3, and each planet offers a unique resource that affects the rest of the campaign). Not conquering enough planets could not only deprive your forces of equipment and technology but could end up putting you into a string of defensive scenarios. The PC bonus Waffen SS units can be bonus captured enemy equipment.

I don't think retaining asymmetrical forces is difficult. I think an intriguing version of the rock, paper, scissors design is the hard part, and Slitherine already has that.

I'm afraid I can't understand this sentiment. Once you have Panzer Corps up and running, there should be very little to remind you you're on Windows. You're in Belorussia and it's 1942 and that is all that matters!

The sentiment is bitterness. 40 years of using pc's and windows applications when you only have the most fundamental of computer skills (as I'm hoping my use of "quotes" demonstrates. I'm betting they are butchered) is enough to make anyone bitter. But I won't digress into a PC vs. Mac debate. The point is that I don't doubt Slitherine's efforts in their new game. I just want to minimize the amount of windows programming on my machine and Boot Camp with Parallels would result in a PC with Windows and all the problems related thereto.

Slitherine has consistently published throughout the PC project that there will be a Mac version coming. I will wait patiently for my copy. In the meantime, I will let you fine gamers debug it for me, and get all of the scenario expansions developed.

[Molve]

A direct port of Star General would be the last thing I would want Slitherine to do. There are already enough real time space games where the formula of max research + max production + max expansion = game win. Star General was a turn-based version of that theme which is probably why you didn't care for it. I'm not saying that that game design is a bad one, but I too prefer the rock, paper, scissors.

As you might have gathered, I don't (didn't) look at it that way.

I saw a --- General game, expected --- General gameplay, and decided Star General simply was a really poor entry in the General series. In fact, this is the first time I've even heard about the suggestion Star General was supposed to be a "turn-based RTS". If your explanation is indeed correct, that would explain a thing or two, I guess!

In my memory it was simply a Panzer General game in space, but one that utterly failed to include even the basic gameplay interaction of that game. I simply concluded SSI had put an intern, or a secondary programming team, on "converting" PG into space. Lacking an understanding of what made PG great they went with the too-simplistic "space is the seas between the stars" analogy, they simply painted the ocean hexes black and designed lots of ship types.
I fully admit my SG recollection is 1) hazy and 2) incomplete (since you clearly have played it much more than I ever did), but I can't remember anything about resource-gathering, research, expansion, or any other staple of RTS/4X games (such as exploration). So the "turn-based RTS" comparison wasn't something I was even close to making.

Perhaps the one clear memory I have was playing on a map where every visible hex was filled with an enemy ship. That told me the programmers simply didn't know what they were doing. Like if Panzer General only featured grassland terrain and only armor units. Or, indeed, the way naval battles would play out in even Panzer Corps. (Where I don't mind, since you never play massive naval-on-naval action and simply can't build new ships).

And I still think a port has already been designed by Slitherine in PC. PC has 100 target cities across Europe and Asia.

I don't understand, but that might be because I stopped playing SG too soon?

The same thing can be done in space. 100 target planets spread across 20 scenarios.

Well, since this to me is so very obviously the way to do it you must have experienced something I haven't...?

You have a space core and a ground core.

Well, now we're back where I understand what we're talking about and where I can offer an opinion!

Just like you currently have air wings in your core in Panzer Corps, I don't see why a Space Corps game needs dual cores.

Mixing two separate branches of the military works well in PC, and I foresee no need to change this in a Space Corps type of game.

Not conquering enough planets could not only deprive your forces of equipment and technology but could end up putting you into a string of defensive scenarios.

Well, this you handle by designing a good campaign with an engrossing narrative.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you you are proposing building consequences of failing to take victory hexes right into the game engine. I disagree. Just allow the same capabilities as displayed by Panzer Corps, and the game would work fine.

Specifically, let's say the Panther tank wasn't developed by the Germans themselves. Instead, they saw the prototypes in the Tractor Factory in Stalingrad. Now, you design your campaign so that if you fail to take Stalingrad the campaign winds down during the six months after whatever date Space-Stalingrad is set. But if you do achieve your objectives, the campaign "fast-forwards" six months, where you set the arrival date of the Panther space tank. Voila! You have designed a campaign where the only way to get Panther tanks is to conquer Stalingrad!

The PC bonus Waffen SS units can be bonus captured enemy equipment.

Or this. Yes, you could already in today's PC game design a new Ratte super-heavy tank unit that you can't buy, only get as special elite units. (Not saying it would be a good idea - saying the game already supports such a notion)



Cheers!

[macattack]

Molve, I think you are absolutely right. SSI didn't really give Star General their best effort.

And yes, your memory is correct, on the larger games you would end up with a screen full of ships which would result in a brawl instead of any kind of tactical combat.

I just didn't agree with your proposal that Sliterhine not even consider the SG concept. I think it's a good concept that SSI handled very poorly. I think Slitherine could do it right.

[macattack]

Sorry about that guys.

I didn't mean to run you off onto a tangent that only Molve and I were interested in.

[Some1]

Sorry about that guys.

I didn't mean to run you off onto a tangent that only Molve and I were interested in.

On the contrary, i think it was rather interesting (even if i have never played a 5-Star game besides Panzer and Allied-General).

My intention was to prevent the Star General postings from getting lost in a thread about a different topic, so i kindly asked a moderator if it was possible to collect them together.
I had expected that the posting would be added to Molves forlorn thread 'People's General, Space General etc' viewtopic.php?t=27760, but a new thread is also fine.

[macattack]

Well in that case... wait until you see me get going on Fantasy General!

[VPaulus]

I still have hope that we can see one day a Star Corps and a Fantasy Corps.

[macattack]

I still have hope that we can see one day a Star Corps and a Fantasy Corps.

Well shoot me a whisper when you guys are getting serious. I have a ton of suggestions I would love to throw at you!

[Molve]

I just didn't agree with your proposal that Sliterhine not even consider the SG concept. I think it's a good concept that SSI handled very poorly. I think Slitherine could do it right.

Ah, now I understand.

Let me put things right: I never meant Slith should not consider Star General at all. I just meant that they should not bother doing a direct port.

To make this clear, I said something along the lines of reusing the name but inventing a new game. I didn't mean that game should have nothing in common with SG. I just meant that to be successful, it needs to "reinvent" SG from the ground up. I sincerely believe the idea was great, but that the specific game design aren't worth salvaging.

Perhaps everybody is already in agreement SG was very lacking, and that a faithful rendition like how Panzer Corps gives us "Turn based WW2 goodness in the mold of Panzer General" (their words not mine) never was/is/will be in the cards. Then I was worrying for nothing!

Cheers,
Molve

PS. And yes, having a place outside the Extra Content Announced thread is much better

[macattack]

Ah, sorry to misunderstand you Molve.

I look forward to your input when Slitherine starts to consider Star Corps.

[Molve]

They should buy the rights to Imperium*, that's what.

Or they should contact a company called GMT** and offer to do the computer version of a board game called Space Empires 4X***.

Bottom line: there's already lots of wondrous space-themed war games out there. No need to reinvent the wheel - just look at SSI's SG to see how easy it is to bungle a brand new concept!

*) www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3661/imperium
**) www.gmtgames.com
***) www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/84419/space-empires-4x

[Kerensky]

Just give me some good capital ship battles. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLoteLwM ... r_embedded

I would really, really enjoy a game all about management of a single capital ship. If you could imagine your core in Panzer Corps, except each unit of the core represents a crew member, or gun emplacement, or some form of 'ship component' and the game was to start out with your small capital ship and fly around the galaxy encountering and blowing the $%%$%$ out of other capital ships, all the while upgrading your core (ship components) and watching as your crew grows and gains experience, and sometimes dies and needs to be replaced... mmm delicious.

Marry all those concepts to something that is graphically pretty with lots of eye candy? Dream space game for me right there.

[Molve]

Well, a marriage between Homeworld and Battlestar Galactica is something I wouldn't want to miss! And who isn't dreaming of an era restoring the Battleship to its "rightful" throne as King of the Seas...?

But to sober up for a moment, isn't the tragic truth that Capital Ship combat would play out much as Star General did? (For all my complaints I have never said SG didn't take its technology to its logical conclusions)

The reason we love Panzer games, isn't that precisely because the tank isn't merely better in all regards? Armored warfare does need combined arms, and that is what makes it so "easy" to build a compelling tactical game.

As much as loved the video (thanks for the link!) I do feel a Star Corps game can't afford to miss out on including lots of other technologies that answers the question "but why don't I just build BBs?". In Panzer Corps, even Tiger IIs - the real battleships of the game - isn't the solution to everything. It's close, for sure, but they appear so late that they're really not ruining the game play.


(All this is ignoring that epic space battles do crave majestic 3D graphics, like in Homeworld. Slitherine's game have many strengths, but majestic 3D graphics can't be said to be one of them... )

[Iscaran]

Well I personally would not mind having a Space Corps game.

But really you have to make it MUCH more worthwhile to play than Space General, which was an absolute junk piece as many in this thread already explained why.

In contrast to Panzer Corps which intentionally was made to preserve as much as was advisable from the ingenious PG series.

[VPaulus]

But will it be enough people interested in a Star Corps?
I've always had the idea, maybe because it was a better version, that Fantasy General was the favourite.
If I had to choose between a Star or a Fantasy, I would prefer a Star, undoubtedly.

@Kerensky, you might find some of the things which you're looking for, in the still in development game "Drox Operative" from Soldak. However being a indie studio don't expect next gen graphics. But usually the gameplay of their games are quite interesting, IMO.

Features:

Explore a dynamic and evolving galaxy
Explore a unique sector of the galaxy in every game, with different "monsters", ship components, quests, and even races
Fight in the galactic war between the various alien races
Battle hundreds of different enemy starships
Build the coolest and deadliest starship in the galaxy
Outfit your ship with thousands of components and crew
Adventure with your friends with co-op multiplayer

[Molve]

If I had to choose between a Star or a Fantasy, I would prefer a Star, undoubtedly.

For sure me too.

Don't get me wrong I'm a great lover of fantasy in all forms and shapes.

Except, perhaps "tactical war games". Seeing elves and orcs line up in neat columns (or hexes) have always seemed so... jarringly anachronistic, to me. Smaller skirmishes I'm okay with. Regular armies not so much. I guess it's something about the gameplay that exudes "modern warfare" that I can't shake.

Either that, or FG wasn't enough changed from the PG paradigm. To actually feel like "historical combat" you need a completely different paradigm of war (see GWs Warhammer Fantasy Battle, or Medieval Total War). Having armies be long meandering trains with supply issues; having them be SMALL (though no less decisive) affairs compared to WWII.

I guess I'm more comfortable with the basic gameplay idea of having "space panzers" than "dwarf and troll panzers" I guess...