The search thing says we haven't talked about this for some time, so here we go. I haven't put in all that much time with the original (which is super cheap with all the expansions on Steam), but the new one is out this fall and looks pretty interesting in this video that was released recently:
http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/7530/...f+the+Stars+2/
Last edited by Sarkus; 10-28-2011 at 11:17 PM.
Looks very sexy. I'm pretty sure this will be impossible for me to resist. Turn based strategy with real time tactical battles, yes Please!
The original is absolutely worth trying. The recommendation for SOTS was probably the most valuable thing I've learned on QT3 in many years of reading it, that and not buying MOOIII, but I probably would have figured that out on my own.
I am looking forward to SOTS2
I know I'll be grabbing it whenever it shows.
My initial impression of SOTS was that it was weak. But the developers really went the extra mile in making it into something special. That alone makes me willing to fork out for the sequel.
I really wish destroyers still existed in the traditional sense. Introducing a larger ship class while essentially removing the smallest ship class almost makes the introduction of the larger class pointless. It would have been nice to have had the extra technological room to further out tech an enemy player.
Lords of Winter?
Yeah, going with just cruisers, dreadnoughts and leviathans seems kind of weird. Are your exploration ships cruisers, too? How did that get through the finance committee?
Last edited by Raife; 05-27-2011 at 12:46 AM.
@Blips - if you played the original, you know that three ship classes with a big tech tree have plenty enough granularity to allow one player to out-tech another.
I'm also looking forward to this. I loved SotS, and the ship designs for SotS 2 look gorgeous.
Just to be clear, there are still a lot of ships smaller than cruisers in the game. They just take the role of battle-riders and system defense ships.
Looking forward to the game, just hope that I will be able to play it, even if at greatly reduced graphics levels.
Yep, and to be honest that's pretty much all I used destroyers for in the first game (that and scouts/early warning canaries) once I got my tech and economy up enough.Originally Posted by MikeJ
Well to be crystal clear the first had riders smaller than destroyers too. It isn’t a big deal but I agree with Blips. What’s the point?
This one still has the (even smaller) fighters as well, doesn't it?
I had thought Destroyer-class vessels could actually be launched from larger ships in SOTS2, on top of smaller drone strikecraft, etc. So you have the Cruiser carrier they showed in the video which I'm assuming launches strikecraft, but the larger (DNs, LVs maybe?) have the capability of carrying destroyers with them, and deploying in battle. That was my understanding, but I very well could be wrong. Perhaps DEs just lack interstellar drives.
Me too!
Ok, that would be bad-ass. Since I can't find any info I hope this is what they do.
Edit: From the video it was said there are 3 classes and small battle riders. the smallest class is the cruiser. No mention of the destroyer class at all.
Last edited by GreasyPig; 05-27-2011 at 08:48 AM.
silvaril over at OO has been posting links to everything about SotS 2 thats come out for a while now if anyone is interested:
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/foru...hp?f=2&t=71958
Somewhere in there I remember seeing a screenshot of destroyers launching from a larger ship, but I can't remember which article had that.
I own the complete edition. I'm just a tech whore when it comes to these kind of games. I love out-teching my rivals and showing up on their door step with my superior fleets. The thing with the original is that, (depending on research settings I suppose) it was quite easy for enemies to eventually catch up tech wise in longer lasting games.
Destroyers had a pretty limited place in the first game once enemies made progress on tech and infrastructure due to the fact that the only real military targets in the game were enemy planets, enemy fleets or trade ships. And assaulting a large enemy fleet or attacking a fortified planet with a handful of destroyers was essentially a waste.
Destroyers could have remained more significant in the sequel's late game now that systems are being handled in a more detailed manner. Moon bases, research stations, construction yards, and trade and supply lines could have been vulnerable to Destroyer raiding parties.
I repeatedly tried to get into the original game but just couldn't.
This was mainly because of the strategic portion of the game which I found shallow and full of uninteresting choices and repetition. Also, the game had bad controls/UI and was kinda 'soulless'.
Long live Master of Orion!
But I will make sure to check out the new game because turn based 4X (even lite 4X) games are rare these days.
Edit: A 3D starmap, why do they do this? Not a good idea in my opinion.
Last edited by Zeitgeist; 05-27-2011 at 09:02 AM.
First, the game only came into it's own with the introduction of it's expansions. Those fleshed out the game to remarkable levels. Second, I'm not a huge fan of the 3d maps myself, but there is a flat map type and a disc map type that work fine to get around that.
I'd like to reiterate what Sepiche said, Zeitgeist. I also had a hard time really getting into the game when I first tried it (when it first came out). I thought it was okay, the tactical battles were pretty cool, but the strategy layer was just too shallow.
I tried it again when the first two expansions were out and picked up the complete version and I was completely hooked. Not only did the tactical side have tons of new toys, but the strategy layer had trade, space stations, etc.
As for a 3D starmap, why is it "Not a good idea"? I thought it worked great in SOTS1, which also has 2D maps if you're so inclined. I always preferred the 3D ones, though.
I've given that one a lot of thought actually, and my theory is, at least in my case, it's more of a UI issue. On the basic map view they don't do a good job of showing the depth of the planets, so you have to constantly realign your view to get a sense of the space. You can get around that somewhat by going to the political view which does a better job of showing which stars are closest to the camera, but it's an odd oversight.
For me that just makes the 3d maps more of a hassle than they are worth as I don't think they add much to the strategy over one of the flatter map types.
I have tried it with the expansions (all three) but it did not much for me.
3D Map: More or less what Sepiche said. It adds nothing meaningful but is a hassle to use. Similar to the "3D" tech tree view in the original game.
Last edited by Zeitgeist; 05-27-2011 at 11:02 AM.
Ah, ok. I guess I tend to play smaller maps so things end pretty quickly (one way or another :) ).
I disagree that the 3d maps don't add much strategy. In general you have more fronts in the 3d maps compared to the 2d ones, so you potentially have more conflicts to deal with at once. The 3d maps also have interesting implications for the different drive types that don't come into play in the 2d maps. But I acknowledge that many people find the 3d maps a pain to navigate around. Video of an early build of SotS2 looks to me like the nearer and farther stars are distinguished better, so hopefully it will be easier to process.
Yeah, I like a lot of what SoTS did, but some of the novelty gameplay items didn't seem to work as well as planned. I hope they're better implemented in the sequel.
Yeah, I agree that it does add to the strategy, just not enough in my opinion to make the extra hassle worthwhile. Doesn't bother me a bit though since there are enough map types to keep everyone happy (although it'd be nice for there to have been a few more flat map layouts).
I actually think the hollow sphere map is a nice compromise between 2d and 3d. The thin sphere around the outside is more or less just a curved flat map, while the solid core isn't so large that it's hard to navigate.
Hmm, 25 posts in a SotS thread and no sign of Rorschach. I hope the guy is OK!
As an aside, *his* tech layout (the "maps" on his website) is a much more accessible approach to the tech tree for my tastes. I love that thing.
I used to play using the 2d maps, as 3d just strains my brain...
That worked perfectly for me :)
I look forward to this, and I don't care if they got destroyers or not, you could always rename cruiser and call them destroyers..
I'm in also, I just hope they bundle in some Rorschach tutorial videos so I don't have to wait figuring out what I'm doing.
jorune
There's a theme of less with more detail in SotS 2. Less stars but multiple planets and moons. Less ships per fleet but greater survivability with systems like ablative armor and critical hits. Swarm tactics from the original game are evolving to more of a WWII carrier doctrine.
So instead of riders, destroyers, cruisers, dreadnoughts, and leviathans they demoted destroyers to the rider role along with drones and fighters. Cruisers are the bulk of the fleets with dreads anchoring. Leviathans are the rare super-flagships that bring the big guns like Vader's SSD.
All speculation and IMO based solely in my observations if what's out there.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote