Slitherine

So, I have purchased the game!

I so far played just for a short time (summer 1956) and have only launched the sputnik, so this is a post mostly about my first impressions:

1) Graphics are nice, I don't really need anything better in a strategy game and the R7 soviet launch pad was suprisingly well rendered and very pleasing.

2) UI graphics-wise is very cool, and user-friendly (I'm a bit shortsighted and it was a pleasant thing taht there was no tiny-tiny text to read, all is crisp and visible).

3) I still have to learn how to quickly get around to various management zones and menus, but so far there is one thing I don't like (or maybe I have not discovered how to do so).
When I already attached scientists to a certain project, how can I quickly look up their stats? So far I had to de-attach them to see their stats, is there any way around this?

Now a question:

How are hardware mission costs calculated? For exmple my first sputnik attempt ended with a failure at the countdown sequence, so no hardware was actually destroyed. Yet during my second attempt it seems like I had to pay again the full mission cost. I'd assume that if my previous launch failed at the launch pad without destruction of the rocket and satellite, I could re-use them for free (or only pay for minor repairs and adjustments, not pay the full price for a new rocket).

Ok, played up til 1972, finished all the manned missions. So here are some of my more in-depth thoughts and suggestions:

1) The campaign mode, particularly in the 1955-175 era absolutely should feature a competitive race between the soviet and us space programs. Indeed, this is probably the feature that will attract most gamers. I think that BARIS hit the nail on the head in this aspect - both with the stylized mid-century TV broadcasts, cold war news etc. Definitally more cold-war tension and mid-century falvor would be very appreciated in the final campaign mode.
There should be some visible differences when playing the soviet side - less money than the US program (particularly since the mid 60s),

2) Also imho it would be a very good feature as an element of combining with episode 2. Episode 1 would be all about competition, while episode 2 would start with at first shy and limited attempts at cooperation between the space agencies. In later years, particularly 90s the cooperation would become a major theme with its own events and culminate in the ISS programm.
I think it would form a nice narrative between episodes - the shift from the entirely competitive 50s and 60s right down to the cooperation of the 90s and 2000s.

4) Having said all that, I like the sandbox mode, its really fun to play around with all the options in a more leisurely way. The sandbox mode should definitally stay. However it should exist paralel to the "us-soviet race" campaign. This way the game will have two very solid "legs" to stand on.

5) Political and random events are a must, to make for greater unpredictability and greater replayability.

6) Mixing and matching rockets, this would add to strategic depth. In my own playthrough I found myself at times in a situation where a lower-level cheaper rocket was experiencing failures, while some high-end rocket was stable and reliable. In that situation it would make much more sense to me to just use this more expensive reliable rocket on this low orbit mission, instead of investing a lot of research into making the low-end rocket capable again.
This choice between losing more money or wasting more research capacity adds strategic depth and it was also a fact of real space agency decision making, particularly for the soviet space program.

7) Gender. All early astronauts and cosmonauts were military pilots and as such were males. Sending the first woman into space was a very important propaganda event that indeed spunned a lot of popular support for the soviet space program. I think gender should pay a part (at least in the campaign mode) and there should be a separate acheivement for sending the first female cosmonaut.

Now something purely technical - there should be some hotkey that would bring the player back to the "manage programs" screen. As a player I found myself constantly shifting through menus to get back there. The "manage programs" screen was probably the most visited one in the whole game.

9) Partial failures. Some technical defects that did not stop the mission from ending sucessfully, but which nevertheless lower the reliability of said hardware in the next mission and require more research work. Things like microcracks appearing on the heat shields, or some piece of equipment becoming damaged during landing etc.

10) Near-disasters. A situation where a mission almost ends with a catastrophic disaster, which is averted by a skilled astronaut or ground crew staff.
RL space history had quite a few of those. Apollo 13 would probably be the most famous, but other cases like Leonov's near disaster during the first ever EVA are also known. I'd like to see more of those, both for historical accuracy as well as for dramatic moments and immersion.

11) Related to the point above, perhaps some limited RPG elements - astronauts gaining 1 additional bar in some skill they performed particularly well during a mission. Perhaps also medals and awards for exceptional missions? Again would add to the cold war immersion.

Hello Sabratha,

Glad you liked the game!

We're coming up with ways to address most of the points you mentioned in your post. We'll be making some announcement soon regarding the changes in the roadmap.

Sabratha wrote: 3) I still have to learn how to quickly get around to various management zones and menus, but so far there is one thing I don't like (or maybe I have not discovered how to do so).
When I already attached scientists to a certain project, how can I quickly look up their stats? So far I had to de-attach them to see their stats, is there any way around this?

There's no way to view all the stats from the RD screen, but you can always go to the 'SET Center' building and click on the 'View Assignments' button in order to see the list of employees, along with their stats and assigned component.

Sabratha wrote: How are hardware mission costs calculated? For exmple my first sputnik attempt ended with a failure at the countdown sequence, so no hardware was actually destroyed. Yet during my second attempt it seems like I had to pay again the full mission cost. I'd assume that if my previous launch failed at the launch pad without destruction of the rocket and satellite, I could re-use them for free (or only pay for minor repairs and adjustments, not pay the full price for a new rocket).

At the moment the components are 'spent' when flown in a mission, irrespective of whether the mission succeeded or not. Some members from the community are helping me create a list of failures for all missions, so we'll probably add a mechanism for you to get your 'component back' in case of a failure before launch that didn't affect the component integrity.

Cheers,